Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Clearly, BG's defense was outclassed against Wisconsin. But maybe it was exacerbated by Pope's early departure. Without him in the game, BG seemed to adopt an almost exclusively pass-oriented offense, which was exciting to watch, but didn't consume much time, and hence didn't give the struggling defense much of a rest. If Brandon had had a healthy Pope, he might have been able to keep the defense off the field a little longer, without compromising the offense.

Pope had little to no affect on the play of the defense.

Not sure if it was Pope or playcalling or poor execution, but we definitely struggled in the 3rd quarter to maintain possession of the ball. When our defense was already getting destroyed it would've been nice to give them some longer breathers between drives, but I'm not sure it had much bearing on the game, really.

I do know that we had a 5:00 advantage in time of possession in the first half and got destroyed in that regard in the second half...

Since this is the Pope-injury thread, I gotta say something. I love having your best athletes on special teams. BUT... if Pope is going to be on the kick return team, WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING AS AN UP-BACK???? If he is retruning the kick, I am fine with that. But to have him out there as a blocker is absolutely ridiculous.

Warthog wrote:Since this is the Pope-injury thread, I gotta say something. I love having your best athletes on special teams. BUT... if Pope is going to be on the kick return team, WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING AS AN UP-BACK???? If he is retruning the kick, I am fine with that. But to have him out there as a blocker is absolutely ridiculous.

I wondered the same thing. But wondered it alot more seriously in the first couple moments of his injury when both he *and* BJ were down. Talk about tossing all your eggs in one proverbial special teams basket!

I love BJ Lane, he is my second favorite player on the team. But not having PJ Pope in the game was huge. He maybe just as good of a runner but he is not half the receiver and blocker that Pope is. Without a receiver like Cole Magner or PJ Pope there was no outlet receiver. It was either a big play, a sack, or it was nothing. The loss of PJ Pope made us one dimensional and third down conversions were much harder to come by.

I believe they use Pope in that position to field the short sideline kick that many teams are using now.

factman wrote:I believe they use Pope in that position to field the short sideline kick that many teams are using now.

I understand that, but as TG pointed out, it is very dangerous (i.e. STUPID) to have both your #1 and #2 halfbacks out there for kick returns.

Warthog wrote:

factman wrote:I believe they use Pope in that position to field the short sideline kick that many teams are using now.

I understand that, but as TG pointed out, it is very dangerous (i.e. STUPID) to have both your #1 and #2 halfbacks out there for kick returns.

One of the most stupidest moves I've ever seen. I'm all for puttining your better players on ST's but not most of your offensive players , especially when your
counting on them to carry you anyway.

falconboy wrote:quote]

One of the most stupidest moves I've ever seen. I'm all for puttining your better players on ST's but not most of your offensive players , especially when your
counting on them to carry you anyway.

Falconboy,
Somehow I just knew that I'd find your "words of wisdom" about the game..... But " MOST STUPIDIST"? I'd just like to know one thing...OK, actually two....1. Did you EVER play the game of football? 2. Have you EVER coached? Anything? We are all frustrated to a point, and it's easy to point fingers....but one of us wants his "best athletes" on the field for special teams...and YOU think that is the "most stupidist" idea.

I was at the game, and am currently watching a re broadcast on espn as I type this.... what we couldn't see from our seats on the 50, but you can see quite clearly on the tv broadcast is a true "clinic" in running the FB...i.e. pulling guards getting to the LB's after tackles "kick out" the DE's and a 265 lb FB "cleaning up what's left.... give credit to Wisconsin...they did what they do best.... Personally, I thought the key play of the game, even though it came very early, was the kick return to our 9 yd line. It seemed to wake the Badgers, who'd been somewhat sluggish til that point. Their defense came alive and stopped us in the 2nd Qtr. and got the field position that eventually made the difference... in the 3rd Q., they just continued what started to work well in the 2nd when they scored 35 pts.

Class of 61 wrote:

falconboy wrote:quote]

One of the most stupidest moves I've ever seen. I'm all for puttining your better players on ST's but not most of your offensive players , especially when your
counting on them to carry you anyway.

Falconboy,
Somehow I just knew that I'd find your "words of wisdom" about the game..... But " MOST STUPIDIST"? I'd just like to know one thing...OK, actually two....1. Did you EVER play the game of football? 2. Have you EVER coached? Anything? We are all frustrated to a point, and it's easy to point fingers....but one of us wants his "best athletes" on the field for special teams...and YOU think that is the "most stupidist" idea.

I was at the game, and am currently watching a re broadcast on espn as I type this.... what we couldn't see from our seats on the 50, but you can see quite clearly on the tv broadcast is a true "clinic" in running the FB...i.e. pulling guards getting to the LB's after tackles "kick out" the DE's and a 265 lb FB "cleaning up what's left.... give credit to Wisconsin...they did what they do best.... Personally, I thought the key play of the game, even though it came very early, was the kick return to our 9 yd line. It seemed to wake the Badgers, who'd been somewhat sluggish til that point. Their defense came alive and stopped us in the 2nd Qtr. and got the field position that eventually made the difference... in the 3rd Q., they just continued what started to work well in the 2nd when they scored 35 pts.

It was stupd in my opinion to put your 2 best running backs in on kickoffs. It was dumb move in my opinon. Sorry if using stupidest cramped your grammer style , I was a little too worked at the time up to be grammer wise.Using more of your best defensive players would have been better I think. One thing for sure is I'll be checking the stats for rest of Wisky's games even Temple. If Temple keeps them under more yards rushing than we did, I'm going to puke. ::puke::

Denny,

Watched the game a few times now and honestly? That was one of the BEST power ground games I have seen in some time. Pulling guards, traps, that FB????
If it weren't BG playing, it would have been a joy to watch.

Alvarez said "We're gonna run all day. Try to stop us".

Clinic indeed.

Falconfreak90 wrote:Denny,

Watched the game a few times now and honestly? That was one of the BEST power ground games I have seen in some time. Pulling guards, traps, that FB????
If it weren't BG playing, it would have been a joy to watch.

Alvarez said "We're gonna run all day. Try to stop us".

Clinic indeed.

Freak, I have not rewatched the game. I didn't tape it, and quite frankly don't want to see it again.

However, my impression watching it live was that it was, in fact, a clinic in OL play. I wasn't suprised that our DL got dominated by their OL, our DL has stunk for years. What really had me worried is how many tackles we missed. Didn't you notice how our LBs were trying to basically arm tackle Calhoun, even when they were in position to actually make a tackle?

Our poor tackling was absolutely the most disappointing part of the loss to me (a close second would be the STs play, but it wasn't unexpected). We kept hearing all summer how the defense was working on fundamentals and getting back to the basics. The first chance we get to display that was an absolute lowlight of poor tackling technique.

I know that we aren't as big & athletic as UW. Still we were in position to make a LOT of tackles that were not made. Now, I think Calhoun is a quality back, but he is not THAT good. More importantly, there are a LOT of backs in the MAC who will run through similarly poor tackle attempts. Names like Wolfe, McDougal, and Sherrill come to mind here.

Tackling is a tough thing to work on once the season starts as well, because you typically don't want your guys going all out so they're rested for the next game Hopefully it was an aberration, but after Saturday I'm not only doubting our DL, but moreso I'm wondering if we have any LBs that can tackle.


All that said, kudos to the defensive backs. One thing I said to my roommate was how disheartening it was that they racked up all those yards without having the one or two huge plays to skew them. That said, it was nice that our DBs were able to make the tackles when there were a number of times that it was either a solo tackle or a TD. I'm still skeptical about their pass coverage, and our defense as a whole, but they definitely proved to be more sure tacklers than our LBs; as disgusting of a thought as that is

How would you rank our starting 11 on D in terms of best to worst. Who should be replaced today and who should we build on.

Is Antonio Smith the only one worth anything?

The only players who know how to tackle play in the secondary. Every LB and DL overran/underran countless plays and never put their body in front of a tackle. I am disgusted with how poorly our linebackers got to the ball. Mayberry played his ass off.