BG vs IU thread

[Flipper]

We called and ordered carryout from Myle's when we hit the lot. It still took an hour and a half instead of the promised 1 hour, but it was worth it.

In his 3rd college game Roger Lewis dominated a B1G defense. I hope we can keep him for four years because he looked like an NFL prospect out there.

[jakehovs23]

Knapke = Sheehan 2.0?
Some similarities...not very fast on his feet, but lots of passes, lots of completions. I was blown away with how he held up. Receivers made some big catches when it counted and made JK look really good. Offense will be incredibly fun to watch this year.

Defense...seemed like still a lot of isolation out on the edge, which means one missed tackle leads to an explosive gain or a touchdown. At the same time these are probably some of the best athletes we'll see all year, with a few exceptions. However, for giving up 42 points, I thought the defense's performance was respectable and made some huge stops when we really needed them.

Overall, probably the best game I've witnessed at the Doyt in my 7 or so years of attending. Couldn't be happier with how it turned out. Excited to see how we fare against the Badgers next week! Roll Along!

[footballguy51]

Completely thrilled with the result. However, I completely disagree with the onside kick and the 2pt. attempt. Yeah, if they worked, it would have been awesome. But, that onside attempt gave Indiana great field position. We just went down there and punched them in the mouth with that touchdown. Why give them a short field to answer back?

As for the 2pt. attempt, I know everybody says it makes football sense to be up 6 instead of 5. But, seeing the trend of the game up to that point, Indiana was going to come back and put up points. If they scored a touchdown, then we'd be down 2 and a field goal would win it. If they kicked a field goal, then they're still down 2. And yes, I realize your argument is that they'd be down 3 after their field goal if we made the attempt. But instead, we went for 2, didn't get it, and then when they came right down the field and scored a touchdown, like I assumed they would, we were then down by 3 and a field goal would only tie the game.

[hammb]

Unexpected inside kicks have a ridiculously high rate of success...something near 50% busting one of them out occasionally against a favored opponent is a strategy I love and endorse regardless of its success on this instance. Field position isn't how we play the game anymore, and in this case it didn't hurt us one bit. That rb would have scored from 90 yards...and we took a good gamble to gain an extra possession.

As for the two point I still think it's the right call...but then I'd love to see us go for two nearly all the time.

[kdog27]

I liked the onside kick but not going for 2. Thought missing the 2 carried more weight than converting. But whatever, we won.

[Globetrotter]

Just got done watching the game on ESPN3 after going to the OSU Kent Game yesterday.

What a great game. The offense is great. I expect big things all year from them.

Still must fix the defense. Tackling was a problem and guys running wide open was a problem.

The call to go for it on 4th and goal instead of kick a field goal to take the lead is absolutely unquestionably the wrong call. Even if it worked. You take the lead there. Also a handful of other bad game management type calls. Babers will have to fix that.

[Rollo83]

Onside kick I guess I am OK with, but I wouldn't have called for it if I was head coach. We were pouch kicking anyway most of the day and they were averaging the 35 yard line as a starting point. Maybe gave up 20 or 25 yards of field position with the onside kick. I guess its worth a shot, but hate to give them a short field. Its the kind of call that looks great if it works.

The 2-point try was absolutely the wrong call. Why mess with that with 14-plus minutes left to play? That point can come back to bite you and it almost did.

[gmartin]

Rollo,out college and NFL coaches, I take that back probably 99.9% of the coaches have a chart and when you need a 2pt conversion to make it a 6 pt game or a 3 pt game, etc they will start doing that beginning if the 4th quarter. Just like if BG were down by 5 after the TD they would have gone for 2 pts to make it a 3 pt game. Some coaches will even do it as early as the 3rd quarter. Yes the missed 2pt made it where BG needed a TD for the win opposed as a FG but still the correct call imo

[Rollo83]

Totally disagree! The college and pro head coaches using your chart are no longer employed! When teams are trading scores the way we were yesterday, you don't give up a point with a full quarter to play. You only do that late in a game. You never know when that sure point you surrendered will come back to bite you. And, that's exactly what happened yesterday. We would have been driving for a game winning FG insted of a game tying FG. Luckily it didn't matter.

Plus, who's playing for a six point lead by holding Indiana to two field goals in that fourth quarter? Did you see the Hoosiers kicking field goals in the fourth quarter? Did you see how bad the FG kicker was? They weren't looking to kick FGs. Playing for a six point lead with that much time left makes no sense at all!

[hammb]

The call to go for it on 4th and goal instead of kick a field goal to take the lead is absolutely unquestionably the wrong call. Even if it worked. You take the lead there. Also a handful of other bad game management type calls. Babers will have to fix that.

I disagree entirely.

If I'm the coach I don't ever line up to kick a FG inside the 5 yard line, unless it's a bona fide game winner. In an offensive slug fest like that you have to play for 6. Especially since having IU backed up against their own endzone was probably your best bet at stopping them from scoring as well.

This is new age football, guys. You don't punt on 4th & short. You don't kick 20 yard FGs. You do attempt onsides kicks when the opposition isn't expecting it. The stats favor aggression and playing for TDs. Chip Kelly has made a career off being one of the first guys to realize this. Art Briles has as well. Babers learned from Briles, and it's absolutely the right way to play the game. For decades football coaches have gone with the conservative calls, largely because they're more afraid of answering their critics (or second guessing themselves) when they don't work out. Finally we're getting a bunch of coaches that realize the plays will work out in your favor often enough that you will build yourself some credibility for the times it doesn't work. Just like yesterday...we missed an onsides kick, missed a critical 4th down, but ended up winning the game largely because we passed on a chip shot 3 and played for 6. In the end we only hit on 1 of those 3 gambles, but the reward was enough to help us beat a quality opponent.

I for one welcome a new breed of coach that calls football the way it should be called rather than the way it has traditionally been called.

[kdog27]

I have always been in the belief that you don't go for 2 until you have to. The chart is a guide and it's not followed 99% of the time.

[Flipper]

If a td and 1 pt conversion puts me up 2, I'm going for two...I don't want to do all that work so I can get beat by some left footed soccer reject.

In a shootout like yesterday...I'm going on 4th and short whenever I'm across the 50. We have Ferrari's on offense...I'm not going to pretend they're Hyundai's

[jakehovs23]

Speaking of playing conservative...not sure if I agreed with the decision to play conservative when we had the ball and 1:40 left in the half. Yeah we had the whole field ahead of us, but with the way Tate was kicking, if we could've gotten to the 35-40 even, we could've had three points. Not a huge decision, but a little surprised by the conservative play calling and playing not to make a mistake. Other aggressive moves (onside kick, 4th and goal, etc.) I feel indifferent about lol.

[MarkL]

I thought the game was going to won or lost by Knapke and the front our our D.

Knapke started out completing a bunch of short passes. It's good to complete those passes, but he wasn't taking shots downfield, which I think is part of why we had to settle for so many FGs in the first half. Then in the third quarter you could see him gaining confidence and putting the ball more downfield. I didn't mind his interception at all, not just because it didn't lead to points but also because it was an indication that he was willing to do more than dink and dunk. The offense really got moving when the passing game led to more big plays.

Defensively we really played well, tackled well, stuffed the run, and got good pressure on the quarterback ... until the front of the D wore out. Our secondary was leaky and depended upon the front of the D stopping the run and getting to the quarterback. The D allowed a couple early TDs but after that played great. They got 4th down stops, forced punts and a missed FG. However, going up against a Big Ten offensive line will eventually take its toll, which it did, at which point the IU running game started making plays. I saw a shift in the D when Coleman started forcing our LBs back instead of the other way around and then he started slipping through tackles by a tired linebacking corps.

Thankfully, Knapke hit his stride about the same time that the defensive front wore out. Had the passing game gotten going from the beginning, we probably would have won by quite a bit more. Had the defense worn out a drive or two earlier, we probably would have lost.

Our offense is fun. Period. Our defense, jury is still out. The secondary isn't going to win games for us I don't think but I do believe our defensive front is going to stuff runs and cause all kinds of havoc in backfields in conference play. And speaking of which, I finally was able to see what our defensive scheme is. Against WKU, the D looked like decapitated chickens running around. Against IU, I could see a more organized / prepared D. The secondary plays a soft zone and reacts to an incoming pass instead of jamming receivers and the defensive front puts all kinds of pressure on the run game and gets to the QB. The soft zone would be completely ineffective without pressure on the passing game but as long as our front 6 / 7 is getting the job done, opposing QBs will at some point make mistakes.

Fun game! Our offense is going to a blast to watch all year. I have a tendency to think MAC Ds will not be able to get stops consistently and Os will not be able to keep up. Completely different style of play than the past few years but if well executed this team could be a monster in the MAC.

[Flipper]

When I saw the name Gus Schwieterman on the two deep, my first reaction was "who the hell I s that?"

He had a monster game yesterday...very high motor and follows the ball like a magnet