Upcoming Season

reyray82 · Post by **reyray82** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:19 am

Im starting to get excited about the game. However, i dont think we are getting much respect for this being a rebuilding year. Yes the team is young but alot of the non-starters from last year did get their feet wet due to injuries.
The D looks solid. I count 8 (potential) starters that saw a significant amount of PT last year with good results.

I really like what we have with the offense. Ruiz, Partrige and Odrobinak will do well enough in the passing game. Two RBs with complimenting styles, a Blocking FB and a runner at QB. Add a very experienced Oline and you have clock management. With clock management our D will get rest while the opponents D gets worn down.

And lets not forget the coaches had the whole year to fit this team to its strengths. Theyve seen Turner in action and know what plays will work.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:42 am

Maybe it's because I haven't finished my morning coffee, but I don't see how we deserve any more respect than we're getting, especially against Wisky. We lost our QB (and not just your run-of-the-mill QB, either), our top two RBs (three if you count Thomas as an academic casualty), our top two receivers (not to mention that Lane & Pope were #3 and #4, respectively, in passes caught) and four of our top five tacklers.

Then read the previous thread about the notes in the Sentinel-Tribune: Briggs' recovery from his broken foot is coming along very slowly; Deaudre Perry is officially gone for good. Two strikes for a defense that can hardly afford them.

The 2006 Falcons have a lot of potential. They're young and have much more speed than recent editions, but they have a lot to prove. A lot. And until they do, they don't deserve any more respect than they're getting. Respect is earned, not given.

mmisbg · Post by **mmisbg** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:44 am

mmmmm.....coffee......

Seriously though, I can understand the pessimism about the upcoming season.

However, there are teams that have lost a lot and are still getting respect. This is the nature of college football. This is why I've had to force myself to follow BG, root for the MAC, and to heck with everybody else. I think college is a much more interesting game to watch than pro. I find myself getting interested in college moreso than pro. But, for the sake of my sanity, I've had to cut it off. I force myself to stick to pro simply because of college football politics.

Ask yourself:
-How many teams would be pre-season ranked at #1 if they lost all but 2 defensive starters, lost their top WR, and lost a chunk of their O-line?

-How many teams would be pre-season ranked at #1 if they lost their QB, top 2 RB's, top WR, etc?

-How many teams would be pre-season ranked in the top ten after finishing the previous season 5-6?

Yes, I could go on.....No, I won't. However, I will point out that these are all examples of things I found on "expert" polls.

Simply put, if you are a money team, you get a high pre-season ranking. If you aren't a money team, you don't. End of explanation. I have about pulled my hair out for this very reason on numerous occasions. College pre-season rankings have nothing to do with who is likely to be better than who. Heck, they BARELY have anything to do with who is better than who after the season starts.

So, let us accept the fact that we all have our points.

Yes, BGSU is going to have a lot to prove this year.

Yes, the guys who do college football analysis should be cleaning the urinal troughs in the men's room of UT's football stadium instead of analyzing college football.

We all have our points.

Go Falcons!

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:47 am

[quote="mmisbg"]Yes, the guys who do college football analysis should be cleaning the urinal troughs in the men's room of UT's football stadium instead of analyzing college football.quote]

What makes you think they deserve that kind of promotion? I think they should be punished, not rewarded.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:12 am

I'm with '87. I just don't see how we deserve much more respect than we're getting. We finished the season 5-6 last year and lost almost all of our top offensive talent. On defense I think we can replace what was lost, but it's not a good sign to see Briggs still hurting; we're definitely counting on big things from him this year.

There may be plenty of talent on this team, only time will tell, but at this point very little of that talent has proven a darn thing. With that in mind, I think we're doing well to be picked 3rd.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:03 pm

We finished the season 5-6 last year

Last year was tough enough without you taking another win away from us!

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:17 pm

My bad...I was worried about trying to get my post in before the outtage, and look what happened. We were 6-6...but does a win against Temple really count?

reyray82 · Post by **reyray82** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:59 pm

Why cant we win 9 or 10 games this year? The Schedule is in our favor. Look what Penn State did last year with a young team. Youth is not always a bad thing.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:02 pm

reyray82 wrote:Why cant we win 9 or 10 games this year? The Schedule is in our favor. Look what Penn State did last year with a young team. Youth is not always a bad thing.

But it usually is. Citing the exception to the rule is not a good way to prove a point. There's nothing wrong with optimism, but the smart money this year is for us to be floating somewhere around .500 methinks.

Anything between 3-9 and 9-3 would not really surprise me this year. It's very hard to get a read on this team because of all the new faces.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:19 pm

reyray82 wrote:Why cant we win 9 or 10 games this year? The Schedule is in our favor. Look what Penn State did last year with a young team. Youth is not always a bad thing.

No, youth is not always a bad thing. But the breadth and depth of our youth, combined with the fact that we are also very inexperienced, is reason for tempered expectations.

What would it take to win 10 games? Well, if you count Wisky and OSU as losses, we'd have to run the table. That would mean beating Toledo in the Glass Bowl, something we haven't done since 1994. It would also mean beating Miami, meaning twice in a row, something we haven't done since wins in 1996 & 1997. It would mean going undefeated in conference play, which hasn't happend since those magical 1991 and 1992 seasons (interesting tidbit - we played both Wisky & Ohio State in 1992).

Clearly, history is against us here. Could it happen? Sure, of course. But the odds are long ... beyond long.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:43 pm

hammb wrote:My bad...I was worried about trying to get my post in before the outtage, and look what happened. We were 6-6...but does a win against Temple really count?

Damn, you are still giving us an extra loss. It was 6-5 last year.

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:48 pm

Warthog wrote:
hammb wrote:My bad...I was worried about trying to get my post in before the outtage, and look what happened. We were 6-6...but does a win against Temple really count?
Damn, you are still giving us an extra loss. It was 6-5 last year.

2005 MAC EAST co-CHAMPS!

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:35 pm

Dayons_Den wrote:2005 MAC EAST co-CHAMPS!

Heh, heh.

Is that true, by the way? Are we allowed to count it?

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:12 pm

Schadenfreude wrote:
Dayons_Den wrote:2005 MAC EAST co-CHAMPS!
Heh, heh.

Is that true, by the way? Are we allowed to count it?

Yes, yes, and we ARE using it:

Right thar on the cover of our media guide.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Cool design for the media guide... even better with the spiral binding. Makes scanning a cinch!