Brandon year end press conference

cowboyjoe · Post by **cowboyjoe** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:35 pm

That's the problem...it wasn't a fumble. Replays clearly showed that Pope leaned the ball over the goal line and then was stripped of the ball. The second the ball crosses the line it's 6 points. That call really hurt.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:38 pm

cowboyjoe wrote:That's the problem...it wasn't a fumble. Replays clearly showed that Pope leaned the ball over the goal line and then was stripped of the ball. The second the ball crosses the line it's 6 points. That call really hurt.

Well then they f'ed up that part of the replay. I seem to remember them spotting it on the one, then reviewing, then signalling a touchback. If he *was* in, the karma gods got us back with Omar's sneak vs. UT.

Though I'd still like to see a link to the "ball spotted on the 20 after a failed 4th and goal" rule...

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:42 pm

cowboyjoe wrote:That's the problem...it wasn't a fumble. Replays clearly showed that Pope leaned the ball over the goal line and then was stripped of the ball. The second the ball crosses the line it's 6 points. That call really hurt.

My point is, that's what they called, and not some unknown rule about taking the ball to the 20 on a 4th down inside the 10. The call was a fumble.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:19 pm

I actually never saw the replay....I was in the stands thinking he got in, but to this day, I never saw the replay. Now I don't know if I even want to see it hearing that the replay shows he did get in???? Because if that's the case, why the heck did they review the play and say he didn't get in? What's more, the last two times Akron has come to BG, they have won both games and both times, they made key stops on goal line stands. Man, I'd give Akron a 21-point lead ad say we beat them in a rematch. Yeah, I'm a sore loser....the Akron game still burns me up if you can't tell.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:10 am

I've gone over the replay frame by frame, assuming the officials have the same footage as the BCSN crew was airing, it's inconclusive. It looks like he's putting the ball over before he fumbles, but the ball and his arm go behind Derrick Markray's immense gut, so you lose sight of the ball at the most crucial time.

At least that's how I saw it.

It's interesting how coaches and fans soetimes percieve the game differently. Most of us here were questioning the decicion to punt on 4th and sixth. That was a crucial juncture, but the real "money" play was the decision to kick or go for two. Six yards is a long way to go on 4th down and evewn if we make it, we stil have a ways to go before we're in FG range and not much time to get there.

On the other hand, you look at the decision to go for two and it's a lot simpler. You're telling your better unit, the offense, that they need to get two yards against a defense that hasn't cocnsistenty stopped them all night to win the division. Two yards wins the title and probably sends you bowling....I can see why Coach Brandon is chewing on that one because the odds were probably in his favor.....the thing is, that's not the kind of issue that you think your way through. As hammb would probably tell you, you either have the gambler in you or you don't. You don't teach that and you can't learn it....

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:24 am

Flipper wrote:Most of us here were questioning the decicion to punt on 4th and sixth. That was a crucial juncture, but the real "money" play was the decision to kick or go for two. Six yards is a long way to go on 4th down and evewn if we make it, we stil have a ways to go before we're in FG range and not much time to get there.

I'm not 100 percent positive, but on that drive, I believe we had driven down to like the UT 30 to get to 4th-&-1, then backed up to the 35 on the penalty to make it 4th-&-6, but we still had about 30 seconds on the clock and at least two if not all three timeouts remaining. I may be wrong, but I thought that was the case. We also had the wind at our back. Now we easily could have gone for it and made the first down and then missed a field goal and still go overtime, and this would have been a discussion we wouldn't be having. But with 30 seconds and a few timeouts down that far in UT territory, we certainly "could" have scored and at least attempted a field goal if we move the ball a few more yards.

And speaking of field goals, think of this, we had one blocked before the half and UT had one bounce off the upright and in. If either of those goes the other way (we make it, or UT misses, or even one or the other) we could have won in regulation that way too. Again, this is all woulda, coulda, shoulda, and this is the stuff we all forget it you win and it's all the stuff you remember when you lose.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:02 am

Flipper wrote: It looks like he's putting the ball over before he fumbles, but the ball and his arm go behind Derrick Markray's immense gut, so you lose sight of the ball at the most crucial time.

Are you happy now, falconboy??? All this extra size you were looking for might have cost us a touchdown. Wonderful!!!

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:54 am

BGSU33 wrote:I'm not 100 percent positive, but on that drive, I believe we had driven down to like the UT 30 to get to 4th-&-1, then backed up to the 35 on the penalty to make it 4th-&-6,

It was the 40 and 45, not 30 and 35 yard lines.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:04 am

actions speak louder than words. he makes some good points and seems committed. lets see how he brings our team out in 2006.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:09 am

My favorite part was how he said we've recruited well the past couple years. I seem to remember a certain radio interview in which he blamed our recent struggles on recruiting. I'm nervous about where this guy is taking us.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:17 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:My favorite part was how he said we've recruited well the past couple years. I seem to remember a certain radio interview in which he blamed our recent struggles on recruiting. I'm nervous about where this guy is taking us.

Shhh! Don't hold his previous words against him!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:21 am

hammb wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:My favorite part was how he said we've recruited well the past couple years. I seem to remember a certain radio interview in which he blamed our recent struggles on recruiting. I'm nervous about where this guy is taking us.
Shhh! Don't hold his previous words against him!

As I wrote before, our thin depth on defense can be traced back beyond Brandon's recruiting to Meyer's two classes. The fact that you had so many underclassmen in key roles on defense - Smith, Lewis, Winovich, Briggs - speaks to that, since those "kids" would usually be the guys providing the depth.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:24 am

I guess today has been roster analysis day for me.

Take a look at our 2003 recruitiing class (Jrs in school currently, probably redshirt sophs for eligibility). According to Scout.com, there were 23 guys. Of those, only 10 are still on the team. Timchenko used up his eligibility, Perry is in limbo and the other 11 are just gone. Melvin cole, Ryan Newble, Jimmy Carson, Jenkins Reese, Virgil Robinson and Greg Hutcherson to name a few. Of the eleven still on the team, Kennedy is not playing QB as he was recruited for, and five are offensive lineman. That means from that entire class there are just 6 guys that aren't offensive lineman that are still on the team. Gotta agree that we had some recruiting problems that year. and that class is definitely not providing any depth other then on the O-line.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:28 am

Warthog wrote:I guess today has been roster analysis day for me. Take a look at our 2003 recruitiing class (Jrs in school currently, probably redshirt sophs for eligibility). According to Scout.com, there were 23 guys. Of those, only 10 are still on the team. Timchenko used up his eligibility, Perry is in limbo and the other 11 are just gone. Melvin cole, Ryan Newble, Jimmy Carson, Jenkins Reese, Virgil Robinson and Greg Hutcherson to name a few. Of the eleven still on the team, Kennedy is not playing QB as he was recruited for, and five are offensive lineman. That means from that entire class there are just 6 guys that aren't offensive lineman that are still on the team. Gotta agree that we had some recruiting problems that year. and that class is definitely not providing any depth other then on the O-line.

I thought Brandon only recruits "character" guys. I would think character guys would still be with the program more than half the time.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:36 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:
Warthog wrote:I guess today has been roster analysis day for me. Take a look at our 2003 recruitiing class (Jrs in school currently, probably redshirt sophs for eligibility). According to Scout.com, there were 23 guys. Of those, only 10 are still on the team. Timchenko used up his eligibility, Perry is in limbo and the other 11 are just gone. Melvin cole, Ryan Newble, Jimmy Carson, Jenkins Reese, Virgil Robinson and Greg Hutcherson to name a few. Of the eleven still on the team, Kennedy is not playing QB as he was recruited for, and five are offensive lineman. That means from that entire class there are just 6 guys that aren't offensive lineman that are still on the team. Gotta agree that we had some recruiting problems that year. and that class is definitely not providing any depth other then on the O-line.

I thought Brandon only recruits "character" guys. I would think character guys would still be with the program more than half the time.

Although the 2003 recruiting class will always be credited to Brandon, in reality it belongs, in large part, to Meyers. It's not like Meyers quit and Brandon started recruiting from scratch. More likely, he tied up the loose ends left by Urban's, um, sudden depature.