Next Season Questions

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:18 pm

There were many times when that "top" DB didn't get the help he was supposed to have over top from the safeties. If he is supposed to take underneath, then some safety better darn well be overtop. Yes, the UT 4th and 8 was him, but many were not his fault.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:56 pm

SuperFan_FutureGrad wrote:First, I would just like to disagree with the statement that our defense cost us three games this year. In the Toledo game in particular, our offense kept giving the ball back to UT! Had we sustained one decent drive in the third quarter, scored just ONCE, we would have knocked all the air out of them. The fans would have started to leave, the players would have started to give up. Our defense made some mistakes, no doubt, but our offense kept giving them the ball at midfield!

Anytime you score 41 points, you should win. It's unfair to expect the offense to score 28 points each half. It simply is not going always happen. An offense no matter how good, it is going have times when it is going to sputter. That third quarter was one of those times and our defense failed miserably. That is when you have to have a good defense. We obviously did not have one as our defense gave up 42 points in one half. 42 points! Our offense did more than its share to take care of the defense during the course of the season, and I would say the defense did not do its hare in return. We needed to call on the defense for the first time in months and they were no where to be found.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:08 pm

I am pumped for 2005...no doubt. But I am a bit more cautious than I was a month or so ago. We have work to do...on both sides of the ball.
We need a new kicker, holder and long snapper.
One thing that is of major importance? We kept our coaching staff intact. That is a major positive.

I hate losing as much as anyone....especially that one up north when we should have put the dagger in and run all over them. But that will be a big motivational tool.

Whether BG is in the East or West, we should have a favorable conf sked. The OOC games will be challenging for sure, but win those and there will be rewards.

In any case, this will be a very interesting year. I EXPECT a MAC title...anything less will be a big disappointment....a BIG disappointment. I crave that title.

The Freak has screeched...

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:09 pm

SuperFan_FutureGrad wrote:And if any of the games we play next year come down to field goals (including Boise), we don't deserve to win.

Just to be clear, you're saying we didn't deserve to beat Purdue in 2003? Because if we didn't have two Suisham FGs, including a 47-yarder, we wouldn't have beaten them.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:10 pm

The defense is not blameless, but neither is the offense. Even if the offense did not score another point, it helps to drive the ball and sustain the clock. The best defense is to keep the ball out of the opposing teams hands. Also, it helps to drive the ball deep enough to force the opposing team to drive the distance of the field. On one touchdown drive, they started at the 50 yard line, the very next we missed a field goal and gave up good field position again, and next we fumbled at our own 22, and another drive started from our 46. Field position is another key factor in defending. Defense does not get to control field position. This is a team game and when we win, we win as a team and when we lose, we lose as a team. No team can ever say hey defense, we gave you 42 points, so we owe you nothing else. We'll just go out and have 10 possession that are 3 and outs. We'll make all passes so as to not chew up the clock and we'll give the offense the ball at the BG40 yard line. Now defense, you just protect that lead.

Sorry...it doesn't work like that, especially on the road in a hostile environment against a coach that has only lost 1 home game.

momtartin · Post by **momtartin** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:14 pm

Only time will tell what happens next year, but from what I'm hearing about our recruiting class this year, its gonna be okay. I have faith in the Falcons, and I can't wait for football season to start again, this whole, being inside thing kinda sucks

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:15 pm

Falconfreak90 wrote: In any case, this will be a very interesting year. I EXPECT a MAC title...anything less will be a big disappointment....a BIG disappointment. I crave that title.

I share your expectations. We have had this program together for awhile now, and it is time to make that step. We are returning quite a bit of talent (troubling offseason developments notwithstanding). It is still my belief we were the most talented team in the conference last year, and we fell very short.

Hopefully we will finally not have a choke job or two as the season goes on. I'm quite tired of 3 loss seasons.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:17 pm

Agreed. I think we will be better and we now have a program that will produce years of successful seasons. The bar has been raised and we have current players and new ones coming that are going to hold that bar high.

SuperFan_FutureGrad · Post by **SuperFan_FutureGrad** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:54 pm

I agree with the statement about safties having to cover over top when we are in certain defenses.

Also, I agree with the remark about an offense putting up numbers and then saying, "OK, your turn defense." Again, it doesn't work that way.

And to clarify my statement about field goals, I was not referring to our games in previous seasons, ie Purdue. In the Purdue game, we were going into our opponents stadium, a venue foreign to BG players at the time, and playing a ranked opponent from the Big 10, at a time when BG was not yet on the map. My comment was referring to next season's schedule - none of those games should come down to field goals. The only team that should challenge us is Boise, and that game will be high scoring, not decided by the kicking game.

Also, it is unfair to pick on JUST the defensive backs or JUST a specific one. Look at it from a different point of view. Do the teams BG plays have horrible secondaries? No, not at all. Yet we are able to pass all over them. We give our QB protection, have a talented receiving corp, etc. There is much more involved than ONE defensive back. Any QB like Gradkowski (as much as I hate him) who is given time is gonna find an open receiver - it wouldn't matter who was in the defensive backfield.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:58 pm

SuperFan_FutureGrad wrote:My comment was referring to next season's schedule - none of those games should come down to field goals. The only team that should challenge us is Boise, and that game will be high scoring, not decided by the kicking game.

And if Boise St. beats us 63-62 because we missed a FG or PAT, you're going to come back and say you were completely misguided, right? Or Wisconsin for that matter, or NIU/Miami(OH), or Toledo, right?

The kicking game is important. Period.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:41 pm

Exactly. We've been lucky this year not needing a game winning kick, but the one game we'll need one and won't have him.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:32 pm

SuperFan_FutureGrad wrote:I agree with the statement about safties having to cover over top when we are in certain defenses.

Also, I agree with the remark about an offense putting up numbers and then saying, "OK, your turn defense." Again, it doesn't work that way.

And to clarify my statement about field goals, I was not referring to our games in previous seasons, ie Purdue. In the Purdue game, we were going into our opponents stadium, a venue foreign to BG players at the time, and playing a ranked opponent from the Big 10, at a time when BG was not yet on the map. My comment was referring to next season's schedule - none of those games should come down to field goals. The only team that should challenge us is Boise, and that game will be high scoring, not decided by the kicking game.

Also, it is unfair to pick on JUST the defensive backs or JUST a specific one. Look at it from a different point of view. Do the teams BG plays have horrible secondaries? No, not at all. Yet we are able to pass all over them. We give our QB protection, have a talented receiving corp, etc. There is much more involved than ONE defensive back. Any QB like Gradkowski (as much as I hate him) who is given time is gonna find an open receiver - it wouldn't matter who was in the defensive backfield.

No matter how many points you score a FG or even EP can be the difference between a loss and win.

And i never said it is ok for the offense to stop scoring, I said there are going be times when the offense can't move the ball, it happens to every team. At these times the defense must at least show up.

SuperFan_FutureGrad · Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:20 am

I NEVER SAID THE KICKING GAME WAS NOT IMPORTANT.

My point, was that you do not need a Lou Groza Semi-Finalist every season to win football games. Shaun Suisham will be a loss to this team, but his absence will not destroy our football team/season.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:31 am

Acutally, we did have a game where we needed a field goal...UT. We had a chance to extend the lead in the 3rd quarter with the score 27 - 21 when they were making a comeback. A field goal at that point of the game may have helped shift the momentum back in our favor and stop the bleeding. This may have yanked some of the swagger back from UT, but it was missed only to add more fuel to their fire. Just because we score alot of touchdowns, there are many times when u need a field goal and not just for the game winner. Sometimes you just need to counter back with any points you can get.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:37 am

SuperFan_FutureGrad wrote:I NEVER SAID THE KICKING GAME WAS NOT IMPORTANT.

My point, was that you do not need a Lou Groza Semi-Finalist every season to win football games. Shaun Suisham will be a loss to this team, but his absence will not destroy our football team/season.

But you did say that if a game came down to a field goal, we didn't deserve to win it. I think that's a pretty strong statement and does, to a certain extent, make it appear that you don't think the kicking game is important. Just a thought.