Men against boys out there tonight....

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:07 am

I really don't see what everyone's so pissed about right now? Boise is arguably the best non-BCS program going right now and we stayed within two scores of them at their home. Honestly, our goal right now is Wyoming and after that it's running through the MAC.

Let's be honest: we have a real chance at 10-2 going into Detroit this year.

Forseyfan11 · Post by **Forseyfan11** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:42 am

A fan of knowledge it is true we had the blue field and we got smashed on it for years the idea it is a unfair advantage is a little off to me. You can make out the players just fine. Our Away record as of late isn't to shabby either and we don't have anything going for us their either. I think the biggest thing is teams come in wondering if it is or not giving themselves an excuse to lose.

Good Game tonight though I think all of Boise State will be rooting for you from here on out good luck the rest of the way!

Richin65 wrote:
Falcon137 wrote:
droo31 wrote:Good game, BG. It was much more of a defensive battle then I thought. I am very proud of the BSU defense tonight and you should all be very proud of the BGSU defese tonight as well—they really shut down the BSU offense that was rolling at one point. Most fans are heading towards the exits early in a lot of BSU games...that was not the case tonight and that was a testament to how hard the Falcons played the whole night.

However...please PLEASE stop with the "blue turf is unfair" argument. Do you REALLY think that at FIELD LEVEL there is any kind of camouflaging going on? It isn't hard for the fans in the fans to see and at field level there is no more "advantage" than Marshall, Oregon or the like could claim.
Everyone plays on a green field except for 1 team in the nation, that is where the competitive advantage comes in. It has nothing to do with uniforms.
How is a blue field a competitive advantage?????? BSU has a pretty dam good record on the road as well, so the blue field thing is sour grapes. Also, BSU went through the worst era in Bronco football in the late 90 with a blue field, so to say it gives them an advantage is garbage.

Your team played tough tonight, hats off to them for not giving up and hopefully your player's injuries were minor.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:47 am

droo31 wrote:
However...please PLEASE stop with the "blue turf is unfair" argument. Do you REALLY think that at FIELD LEVEL there is any kind of camouflaging going on? It isn't hard for the fans in the fans to see and at field level there is no more "advantage" than Marshall, Oregon or the like could claim.

+1,000,000

Quit your damn whining about the color of the turf. It makes you look like silly..

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:04 am

I don't know if the blue turf is an unfair advanatge or not...I do know that it looks truly horrid and kind of low rent....

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:06 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:The problem is this year's offensive philosophy. The little sideline passes and cutesy option plays and rollouts work fine when there's room. Once the field shrinks and there are more players down in the red zone, there's no room for that stuff. Then, since we know our "normal" stuff won't get it done there, we resort to spastic trick plays and subs and formations. That stuffs awesome when it works (Pitt), but most of the time, it's just really hard to execute consistently.

Bottom line - if we can't line up and run the ball consistently, find a running QB that is a threat to throw the ball, or find a QB that can run some vertical passing plays, we will continue to struggle offensively no matter how well we can move the ball between the 20s.

Agreed J4H. I saw the same sort of offensive gameplan in that other game tonight. It's one of fear. Quite simply the coaching staff appears to have no confidence in our ability to stretch the field vertically. I don't know if they don't trust the protection to hold up, the WRs to get open, or the QB to make the throws (could be a combo), but the bottom line is this offense we're seeing is afraid to stretch the field vertically.

Take away a vertical threat it makes it very tough to run unless you can fool teams with mis-direction/option type plays. Unfortunately Sheehan is not the guy for those types of plays either. Which means the only threat we have in the backfield is our tailback. With no vertical threat the entire defense is creeping up and they know it'll either be a short pass or going to the tailback...easy to defend. We're making ourselves entirely too easy to defend. As you pointed out it makes it impossible to put the ball in the endzone without using some trick plays.

I will continue to say Sheehan is not the proper QB for this offense, and the better system fit was told to transfer.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:10 am

I don't think Glaud was told to transfer...I heard he initiated the move because he didn't think he was going to play regularly here and thought he could start immediatley in 1AA.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:21 am

Flipper wrote:I don't think Glaud was told to transfer...I heard he initiated the move because he didn't think he was going to play regularly here and thought he could start immediatley in 1AA.

Brandon discussed it on 1470 last Monday with Norm. Glaud asked him if he was going to be given a shot to play, and Brandon told him no. So Glaud asked if he would be allowed to transfer so he could see the field somewhere and Brandon released him.

If Glaud wanted to transfer to play, I can understand that. My problem with the whole situation as it really seemed as though Sheehan was ahead of Glaud their freshmen year, and Glaud was never given the opportunity to surpass him. Now I don't know if he ever would've been a good MAC QB, that's certainly up for debate, but I do think his skillset fit this offense a lot better than Sheehan's.

The thing that's scared me this year is that Sheehan was very hot or cold last year. He had some great games with some stinkers. This year he hasn't had any great or true stinkers, they've all 3 been *blah*. This is not the type of progression you want to see from your Junior QB going into his 2nd full year as the starter.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:26 am

BGDrew wrote:
Let's be honest: we have a real chance at 10-2 going into Detroit this year.

I suppose there's a chance, but from what I've seen of us and the rest of the MAC, it's not a very good one.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:31 am

hammb...that pretty much condradicts what he said last year at the recruiting event. The impression I got then was that Glaud could see he wasn't going to play and asked if he could/ should transfer

I don't know if Glaud had the arm strength to go downfield. I don't think Tyler has the accuracy on the long ball to do it either. It could be that the best fit for the offense flunked out.

I guess that puts us back to Beam...fumble aside, he looked better running the ball than Tyler. Be nice to see him throw one...be even nicer to see him throw one further than 15 yards.

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:43 am

I've gathered by this point that this isn't a thread about OSU/USC. Darn.

More to the point at hand, the dink and dunk 5 yard passes absolutely have to end if we expect to consistently score points again. I don't know how our play design and playcalling can be so innovative (goalline at Pitt) and so predictable (endless five yard passes) at the same time.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:57 am

transfer2BGSU wrote: +1,000,000

Quit your damn whining about the color of the turf. It makes you look like silly..

I've been to their stadium and the turf is actually darker than their uniforms. I could see all the players just fine from the front row. I asked the cheerleaders in '05 and they said it didn't make a difference on the field level either. You can see their players, we just need to execute offensive plays consistently...and not the ones we are running now!

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:56 am

I thought we looked much more in control than in 2005 where we looked shell shocked.

Bye week is coming at the right time, with PItt, Minny, and a trip to Boise these guys all deserve treatment and a break.

As to the "blue turf" debate- if we were playing in two-dimension (a video game, say) this would be an issue. But the fact is we live in 3D and a 5-10, 195 running back does not blend in with the ground when he is barreling ahead at you.

Something I do think is distracting is the videoboard directly behind the goal posts. I see this in basketball arenas as well and I can only assume it must be slightly distracting to shoot a free throw or focus on goalposts while looking at a massive likeness of yourself. . .

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:20 pm

Flipper wrote:hammb...that pretty much condradicts what he said last year at the recruiting event. The impression I got then was that Glaud could see he wasn't going to play and asked if he could/ should transfer

I don't know if Glaud had the arm strength to go downfield. I don't think Tyler has the accuracy on the long ball to do it either. It could be that the best fit for the offense flunked out.

I guess that puts us back to Beam...fumble aside, he looked better running the ball than Tyler. Be nice to see him throw one...be even nicer to see him throw one further than 15 yards.

I'm not sure if Glaud was going to be able to do it either. I definitely liked what little I saw of Nate Davis throwing the ball at halftime of the spring game, but who knows what he was going to bring to the table.

I was really hoping Sheehan would find some consistency this year and start to show more good days and fewer bad ones...instead its like we've just said screw it and we're going to make him look mediocre every day. I'm not liking what I've seen of his development so far at all.

This team is VERY talented, but if they're afraid to stretch the field vertically the offense will struggle, even against MAC defenses. I've seen a few other teams in the MAC play this year and honestly we don't look the best. Buffalo looked pretty good yesterday, and OU must be doing something right playing close @ CMU & @OSU.

The Beam thing is interesting. I'd rather not switch QBs already, but if the coaches aren't willing to let Tyler go downfield we have to do something.

BoiseStateRules · Post by **BoiseStateRules** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:28 pm

"I don't know if the blue turf is an unfair advanatge or not...I do know that it looks truly horrid and kind of low rent.... "

Funny, every team that comes here and loses says the same thing. Like it or not, the Blue has become an icon for the Broncos and, aside from whiny losing teams and their fans, is pretty well respected.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:32 pm

hammb wrote:I definitely liked what little I saw of Nate Davis throwing the ball at halftime of the spring game, but who knows what he was going to bring to the table.

If we had Nate Davis at the spring game, shouldn't the NCAA be asking some questions?