There's No D in the M..A...C

BSinCJ · Post by **BSinCJ** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:47 am

Let us all hope this coming season, the BG boys will tighten up their defense. I am excited about our DE and LBs as well as the DBs we picked up last month and hope that some of the guys that were RS last year can step in.

I will go to my grave thinking we could have beaten the Badgers in their home if we had any type of run defense on the field that day. I miss the days of college football with scores like 21-17 and 28-24. It seems our school has gone to the basketball on grass system and it showed how without a defense you are wondering who will have the ball last to win the game... like the Toledo game this year.

Two years ago, we should have put away UT in their home but we let them back into the game. Same can be said about this years game and the UW game.

I am not upset now, I just hope the coaches up there have a plan in place.

Love the fact we have a kicking game back. How many times this year did we have the ball inside the 25 and knew we had to go for it instead of kicking a chip shot to get some confidence. I hope Big Bird can provide the mental ease that i think this team lacked last year.

As much as it pains me to say, I can see OSU putting over 40 on us, but with their LB corps being depleted, maybe we can shock them in the shoe. But it has to be done by a balanced team. Defense has to step up and smack someone in the mouth.

dduncan · Post by **dduncan** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:25 am

This is kind of an interesting topic. Unfortunately, BG (and the rest of the MAC) are going to struggle to keep the upper division of the major conferences from scoring. Physically, there isn't much of a match against Ohio St., Wisconsin, Michigan, etc...

I, like someone here, have my doubts that the spread offense at BG should be their full time offense. I would like to see a hybrid of sorts, like what Ohio St. currently does.

The better teams seem to adjust to the spread offense and forces a tired BG defense out on the field for longer than they should.

Personally, I have my doubts that Urban Meyer can be successful at Florida with the spread offense. The better teams, with depth and athletes seemed to keep Florida from being a successful offensive team.

ChicagoFalcon · Post by **ChicagoFalcon** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:08 pm

It's funny how a couple of years ago the oh so feared spread offense was giving big teams fits. But it didn't take them long to figure out how to tame the spread. I like the idea of a hybrid type offense that incorporates both aspects of the spread and clock killer "O". Sounds great, but I just don't think the MAC has enough talent in place to gamble even though that's all we have left is to gamble...heck, maybe we could suprise someone if we would think outside the box.

windycityfalcon · Post by **windycityfalcon** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:49 pm

basketball on grass huh?
apparently it's not our basketball team they're trying to look like on football field

redskins4ever · Post by **redskins4ever** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:01 pm

I am going to disagree with the upper echelon MAC teams unable to compete against the better big ten teams physically... MAC teams now wilt in the fourth quarter not the second, the speed gap has closed overall, and the really issue is depth for a MAC school... MAC schools just don't have the 2nd teamers who can hang with the 2nd teamers of a BIG 10 school.

2nd point... offenses are always adjusting, changing, and just because the defenses have "caught up" doesn't mean a MAC school couldn't find the new offense... its all based on being different... if you do something others have seen you are more apt to upset opponents and take down bigger teams.

3rd... I have been screaming for five years for college football to cut 5 more scholarships... why? Three reasons... 1) More Parity in college football, think trickle down effect 2) It isn't necessary to carry that many scholarships for college football 3) Title IX compliance and not killing mens teams.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:13 pm

Terry Malone just left Michigan (former BG guy who was the Wolvies OC). A lot of the alumni were peeved with him because he was too conservative., They wanted to see him incorporate the spread.

I don't think the spread is seen as a gimmick as much as it was in the past, but because so many teams have adopted it or elements of it, there's more film available to break down and analyze. As a result, you're less likely to be successful if you are only utiizing the spread.

(I almost forgot---Tressel hired Tim Beckman away from us last year becuse he had experience defending against the spread)

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:15 pm

Flipper wrote:(I almost forgot---Tressel hired Tim Beckman away from us last year because he had experience defending against the spread )

He did?

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:17 pm

I thought he left because it was every Ohio boy's dream...

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:39 pm

TG1996 wrote:
Flipper wrote:(I almost forgot---Tressel hired Tim Beckman away from us last year because he had experience defending against the spread )

He did?

I'm almost positive he schemed a defense capable of holding Gradkowski and co to FG's on a possession or two...

ChicagoFalcon · Post by **ChicagoFalcon** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:37 pm

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 pm

redskins4ever wrote:I am going to disagree with the upper echelon MAC teams unable to compete against the better big ten teams physically... MAC teams now wilt in the fourth quarter not the second, the speed gap has closed overall, and the really issue is depth for a MAC school... MAC schools just don't have the 2nd teamers who can hang with the 2nd teamers of a BIG 10 school.

2nd point... offenses are always adjusting, changing, and just because the defenses have "caught up" doesn't mean a MAC school couldn't find the new offense... its all based on being different... if you do something others have seen you are more apt to upset opponents and take down bigger teams.

3rd... I have been screaming for five years for college football to cut 5 more scholarships... why? Three reasons... 1) More Parity in college football, think trickle down effect 2) It isn't necessary to carry that many scholarships for college football 3) Title IX compliance and not killing mens teams.

thanks for bringing this thread back Chicago, I must have missed it. Wanted to say that I agree with Redskins here about his 3rd point. while 5 doesn't sound like a lot per team it would help mid-majors, and maybe even help UK compete in the SEC

Since most other Mens teams(swimming Gymnastics, goif etc) don't give full scholarships to their athletes 5 football scholarships could help a lot of other male athletes, or just reduce the hardship in title IX compliance.

Of course 600 guys nationwide wouldn't be getting football scholarships which is a big chunk.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:50 pm

BSinCJ wrote:Let us all hope this coming season, the BG boys will tighten up their defense. I am excited about our DE and LBs as well as the DBs we picked up last month and hope that some of the guys that were RS last year can step in.

I will go to my grave thinking we could have beaten the Badgers in their home if we had any type of run defense on the field that day. I miss the days of college football with scores like 21-17 and 28-24. It seems our school has gone to the basketball on grass system and it showed how without a defense you are wondering who will have the ball last to win the game... like the Toledo game this year.

Two years ago, we should have put away UT in their home but we let them back into the game. Same can be said about this years game and the UW game.

I am not upset now, I just hope the coaches up there have a plan in place.

Love the fact we have a kicking game back. How many times this year did we have the ball inside the 25 and knew we had to go for it instead of kicking a chip shot to get some confidence. I hope Big Bird can provide the mental ease that i think this team lacked last year.

As much as it pains me to say, I can see OSU putting over 40 on us, but with their LB corps being depleted, maybe we can shock them in the shoe. But it has to be done by a balanced team. Defense has to step up and smack someone in the mouth.

Hey I totally agree with you man. This new class of guy looks pretty decent , we'll see in time if they are as good as we think they are. But , your right the lack of comparable defensive players is what keeps most Mac teams from getting the upset more often against top teams of the B10 , B12 and the other BCS conferences.

I think the Mac is getting better defensive players these last 5 seasons or so but it is very slow process.

There's No D in the M..A...C

There's No D in the M..A...C

Re: There's No D in the M..A...C