Inaugural SEBO blowout

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:29 pm

I am feeling good early in the 4th. I will take a blow out ANY WAY IT COMES.

San Fran Falcon · Post by **San Fran Falcon** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:32 pm

Zom wrote:I am feeling good early in the 4th. I will take a blow out ANY WAY IT COMES.

WORD!!!!

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:01 pm

1 East opponent down, 5 to go and we're MAC east champs.

Certainly there is work to do, but I love the way that the defense responded in the second half.

San Fran Falcon · Post by **San Fran Falcon** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:10 pm

It wasn't quite the blowout I was hoping for, but a win is a win. I didn't get to see any of the game, but from looking at the stats, the 4 TD passes by Temple concerns me. Did our secondary play that poorly?

eRichFalcon · Post by **eRichFalcon** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:23 pm

We were playing mostly second teamers at the end of the game. The score wasn't as close as it looked. We really didn't allow them anything when it mattered in the second half.

San Fran Falcon · Post by **San Fran Falcon** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:30 pm

eRichFalcon wrote:We were playing mostly second teamers at the end of the game. The score wasn't as close as it looked. We really didn't allow them anything when it mattered in the second half.

Thanks for the info. I kinda thought that might have been the case. Good to know the D held strong when it mattered.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:33 pm

What is everyone's take on Temple calling timeouts, going for 2, and attempting onside kicks when the game was clearly out of hand?

I understand that Temple is trying to get better, but what was the point of calling timeouts with under a minute to go driving down the field against our scout team? Then the onside kick with under 20 seconds to go was just stupid.

I wish that Coach Brandon would have kept Sheehan in the game and scored to go up 55-28 after Temple's first meaningless touchdown.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:45 pm

As a coach...you can't ask your kids to give it all for 60 minutes if you aren't.

Heck of a second half by the defense...7 straight 3 and outs I think...you'll win a lot of football games doing that.

able1 · Post by **able1** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:54 pm

I agree. I was a little annoyed with the timeouts and onside kicks while the game was going on, but that's what I would want to see out of BG if we were behind. Gotta give Temple credit for fighting all the way to the end, regardless of the score.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:54 pm

Nice win. Temple wasn't as bad as I thought on offense. They'll score some points in the MAC. Like most everyone else, I'd like to see a tad more balance on offense. We've got the tools to run the ball very well, and it would make the passing game that much better.

It was awful nice to not get housed in the third quarter. Our offense didn't do much, but the defense sure did adjust nicely.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:00 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Nice win. Temple wasn't as bad as I thought on offense. They'll score some points in the MAC. Like most everyone else, I'd like to see a tad more balance on offense. We've got the tools to run the ball very well, and it would make the passing game that much better.

It was awful nice to not get housed in the third quarter. Our offense didn't do much, but the defense sure did adjust nicely.

Their offense was totally DOMINATED in the 2nd half. Our front 4 spent the entire time in the offensive backfield. They legitimately should've called holding on nearly every play.

Good adjustments at the half, especially the defense.

Our lack of balance on offense is scary and WILL cost us games if we don't fix it. You cannot win over the course of an entire season without running the ball at some point.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:15 pm

hammb wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Nice win. Temple wasn't as bad as I thought on offense. They'll score some points in the MAC. Like most everyone else, I'd like to see a tad more balance on offense. We've got the tools to run the ball very well, and it would make the passing game that much better.

It was awful nice to not get housed in the third quarter. Our offense didn't do much, but the defense sure did adjust nicely.
Their offense was totally DOMINATED in the 2nd half. Our front 4 spent the entire time in the offensive backfield. They legitimately should've called holding on nearly every play.

Good adjustments at the half, especially the defense.

Our lack of balance on offense is scary and WILL cost us games if we don't fix it. You cannot win over the course of an entire season without running the ball at some point.

Whats equally as scary is that GB doesn't seem to think our lack of a running game is a problem per these quotes.

On throwing for a majority of the offense

"That's who we are. We are a throwing team. As long as Tyler keeps throwing the ball like he is throwing we are going to continue to be a passing team. The running game is important. If we can rush the ball for 100 plus yards we are good. We like to spread people out and throw the football, that's Bowling Green football."

We ran for 96yrds but it mostly came from TS and AT on a few runs late. Geter had only 5 yds rushing. We need to average about 150 yds at least to go with a 250-300+ yds a game to keep teams honest. I'm also not sure if the disturbing part is us not trying to run more or if our O-line can't run block well enough. I have wondered in the past if GB has recruited mainly lineman who are more natural pass blockers than run blockers but maybe there's nothing to that and its something else. Whatever it is , we need to figure it out before our offense becomes so predictable and and it bites us hard when we don't play teams as bad as Temple.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:06 pm

I thought our defense was what got us through this game. It was tied at halftime, and a few big plays on defense really put it out of reach in the 4th quarter. The D played pretty poorly in the first half, and to see them come out of the break and just dominate Temple's offense was great. The coaching staff made some good adjustments at the half to shut off the Temple attack. Overall it wasn't a great game coaching wise, seeing as the team looked like they were not prepared at the start of the game, but the halftime adjustments worked pretty well.

As for the run/pass ratio, if we're going to run more, I don't think Willie Jeter is the answer. He just didn't look comfortable back there today. Although we didn't run much and the O-Line didn't block well for him at times, the one time he broke through the line he put it on the turf, which led to a Temple touchdown. I think its time we relegated him to 2nd string RB/slot receiver and started pounding it with Bulluck. Bulluck's a tough north-south runner that will get us the balance we need.

manager · Post by **manager** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:48 pm

We need a running game, period.

There are going to be some long Saturday afternoons and evenings without a second dimension to the offense. BC will eat BG alive if all we try to do is pass.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:56 pm

manager wrote:We need a running game, period.

There are going to be some long Saturday afternoons and evenings without a second dimension to the offense. BC will eat BG alive if all we try to do is pass.

I agree, but lets try and take care of WKU first. If we can some how replicate the running game of the mid to late 4th qtr with Bullock and Winovich we'd be golden.

Inaugural SEBO blowout

Inaugural SEBO blowout

Re: Inaugural SEBO blowout