BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Nathan Rourke

Topic: Nathan Rourke

Author

Message

71 BOBCAT
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 1,891

Status: Offline

Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 8:45:56 AM

I was thinking after this game why would Solich keep Rourke in the game after all these turnovers? This decision has been contrary to his previous practices.
Think about this for a moment.
Was it because he had no confidence on Maxwell or Duckworth?
Was it a matter of showing support for Rourke through thick or thin?
Was Solich looking to make this a learning experience for Rourke?
I am not sure we will ever learn the true reason even if the question is asked at next weeks Frank Solich Show.
Was yesterday a 1 off?
Was the Rourke we saw in the previous few game beginners luck?
I guess we will just need to see how Rourke handles the position in the next game.
I have noticed 1 consistent concern: Rourke seems to stay in the pocket too long which causes him to get sacked and this week those sacks led to fumbles.
He is good at improvising when the play breaks down, passing on the run etc.
As we all know 4 turnovers gave CMU 4 more offensive sets. We were driving down the field when each of those turnovers happened. I think we would have won this game if the number of turnovers dropped to 2.

GO BOBCATS

bshot44
General User

Member Since: 2/12/2012
Post Count: 2,211

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 9:42:19 AM

I think it shows that Rourke is QB1 no matter what ... which is great!

After years of QB carousel, it's nice to not see the QB shuffle throughout games no matter if he struggles or not.

The turnovers certainly suck... and he made mistakes, but a dud like this hopefully helps him down the road and actually instills a little confidence in him knowing that its his team no matter what

Mike Johnson
General User

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,730

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 11:02:23 AM

Rourke's 3 fumbles were drive killers and painful to see.

That said,
* He continued to look darned good running.
* His TD pass that was called back was beautifully thrown.
* Dropped passes didn't help the cause.

I was glad Coach Solich didn't pull him.

If Ohio's D has stopped CMU with 2 minutes to go, I was feeling good about Rourke leading the O to a game-winning score or a tie and OT.

Observation: ohio really missed Papi's speed on Rourke's deep throws.

I could be proven wrong but I'm still thinking Rourke could be Ohio's best QB in many a moon.

http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author

Joe McKinley
General User

Member Since: 11/15/2004
Post Count: 485

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 11:07:26 AM

Teams have enough film on us now and are learning how to make the pocket dirty in the spots where he first steps up and then retreats -- how he's been successful. I thought Rourke did a good job in picking spots to run, but where we ran into trouble with ball security was during the times when he was still deciding whether to throw or take a sack. One fumble, though, was on a run where he could've decided to tuck it instead of going for a few extra yards. To his credit, he did that later. I am confident he will get better with both elements after watching this week's film.

Other factors were involved in the pocket pressure. Credit to CMU's defensive line for getting pressure without many blitzes. Credit to their DBs for their ability to stay with coverage -- as Jeff McKinney said, #3 was all over the field for them. We, too, dropped balls that we've been catching in past weeks which put us behind the sticks and didn't put pressure on CMU's defense. This negated our advantage in running against CMU's front.

The INT happened close to where I sit. Odom did a great job on the double move and if the ball had gone to the outside shoulder it might've been a TD. It didn't and I was impressed with how the CMU DB rotated his hips to get in position to make the INT. We were going against the wind at that time and that could've been a factor. I liked the call even though it didn't work out for us.

LuckySparrow
General User

Member Since: 10/15/2012
Location: Illinois
Post Count: 1,750

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 11:13:32 AM

Mike Johnson wrote:

I totally agree. Besides the three fumbles and INT, he was having a very good ballgame. 100+ rushing yards, 3 rushing TDs, and a lot of accurate throws. Too bad he had so many turns. They absolutely killed us

What a day at the Convo.....Wow!

Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,411

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 12:07:28 PM

Joe McKinley wrote:

Teams have enough film on us now ...

[Hard Stop]

This seems a perfect summation. CMU seemed to know everything we did and were ready for about everything we had to throw at them. Our receivers got NO separation all day and one of the worst run Ds in the nation kept us almost entirely in check. (yes, I know our 190 rushing is a nice total, but when 100 of those come from your QB, you're not executing in the run game.)

They took our lunch money with ease because they knew where we hid it and we haven't yet considered a few alternate hiding places by game 6. I think yesterday's offense was a complete disaster in just about every possible way.

Better day from our D? Sure. but when we have a guy wrapped up five yards behind the marker on a key 3rd down in the last couple minutes to go and he drags two guys beyond the chains to effectively end the game, then one team basically wants it more than the other.

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 2,995

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 12:50:41 PM

Biggest factor in the fumbles� The offensive lines inability to pass block.

Joe McKinley
General User

Member Since: 11/15/2004
Post Count: 485

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 1:02:13 PM

Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:

Joe McKinley wrote:

Teams have enough film on us now ...

This is why I love it when you sit in my section -- we see much different games. I'm not kidding about this. I enjoy hanging with you.

First half possessions:

One three and out.
Touchdown drives of 10/72 and 9/68
8 plays/34 yards ending in a red zone fumble with short FG at hand
12 plays/51 yards with a blocked field goal. TD called back due to illegal formation.

Second half possessions:

Two threes and out -- both after McCray goes out following injury on interception return.
1 play/Interception when receiver was open for long gain
12 plays/50 yards ending with a fumble in plus territory
3 plays/-4 yards ending in a fumble in our territory
7/65 yards ending in a TD

Turnovers, the blocked FG for a TD and the untimely penalty calling back a TD and several drops by receivers masked a decent offense day scheme-wise. All done with our starting running back injured and limited, our best receiver still out (able to prepare knowing this, though) and our third running back out during the game.

We did a very good job early with roll outs left for good gains. When CMU adjusted to that, we were able to gash them with runs and option plays to the opposite side of the field. The last touchdown drive was a thing of beauty. We did a great job using Mangen as an extra blocker on the right side and were able to get a wideout open for first downs in the open spot in the cover two.

I say it was a good game plan with adjustments made based on game conditions. We can disagree.

Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,411

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 2:03:05 PM

Joe McKinley wrote:

Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:

Joe McKinley wrote:

Teams have enough film on us now ...

I think your assessment is fair Joe. The receiver drops were really frustrating because it almost seemed due to the tight coverage... like they were surprised a defender was that close in just about every instance. Maybe they weren't used to defenders being that physical or just that close. Have to make those catches in tight spaces. It seemed to me that cmus safeties were cheating back and the lbs were cheating up to stop the run. I thought we should have been way more productive with the underneath routes. Instead We were forcing the ball deep when there was nothing there. That may be just a young qb making decisions though.

Where the rubber meets the road though is the lack of yards and points with 70 offensive plays against a team with obvious deficiencies. And why do we always stink up the joint on homecoming?! Holy Shitsnacks!

Last Edited: 10/8/2017 2:08:32 PM by Deciduous Forest Cat

Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,124

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 4:55:42 PM

LuckySparrow wrote:

Mike Johnson wrote:

Agree with Mike Johnson and Lucky Sparrow. Rourke is the man. He's good. Mistakes in handling the ball can be cleaned up.

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,800

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 7:42:10 PM

Casper71 wrote:

Biggest factor in the fumbles� The offensive lines inability to pass block.

There were a couple guys out on the offensive line, and the line play was not as good as it has been. But at least one of his fumbles had nothing to do with the line because it was while he was running rather than under pressure while trying to pass.

AlumDadDad
General User

Member Since: 10/18/2015
Post Count: 568

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/8/2017 9:26:16 PM

Four turnovers = loss.

Rourke has done some great things for us so far this year, but that must be cleaned up.

The int was a bad pass, to the wrong side of the receiver. Stuff happens sometimes. Fumbles also happen sometimes. Ball protection is a fundamental thing, though... especially after you've lost one...or two.

Back to the initial post on this thread, I was just as surprised when Frank kept him in the game, especially given Solich's lack of tolerance for fumbles by his running backs. It will be interesting to hear his rationale if someone asks at the presser tomorrow.

From what I saw, Maxwell was just as surprised...he was ready to go in after each one of the three.

OUcats82
General User

Member Since: 1/9/2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,862

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/9/2017 8:18:17 AM

Will be interested to see how many teams try to take a similar approach on D that CMU took. I've only been able to watch OT of the Eastern game and a little of the Purdue game so I have no idea if it has been done prior.

With 6 games of film there is definitely more to research for our opponents but I think that with each passing game Rourke is definitely learning more and I'm hopeful that his biggest takeaway (no pun intended) from the Central game is ball security. Is it going to be at the forefront of his mind while on the field (along with everything else a QB has to be mindful of!)?

Just guessing but I think Frank views Nathan as the QB that gives the Bobcats the best chance to win, even with his gaffes on Saturday. I do too. I agree with some others who think that had they stopped CMU late in the 4th with a few minutes to drive for the win, he would have at least gotten them darn close to the endzone.

I also think it is pretty remarkable that he has been able to perform at the level he has overall given that some of our best offensive weapons are injured. Papi coming back (hopefully soon!) will help!

Ohio-The State University

ExCat21
General User

Member Since: 9/29/2014
Post Count: 1,124

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/9/2017 11:05:37 AM

Rourke is our guy. Period. To battle back after being down; that's what you want to see from your QB. 4 turnovers is a lot I know, but this can be fixed. We lose by 3 losing 4 turnovers. It could have been worse. As stated in a previous post, CMU always keeps a good QB, a good WR and a good DE. We got beat behind Poling too many times. Our soft spot is the Cover 2 whole across the middle. I rather give up 5 yard hitches and flat routes. But what I did not like was how their good DE consistently beat our Tackles. The CMU DE had like 3 or 4 sacks and 3 forced fumbles. And when I saw the tackles get beat, they did not try hard to recover or even hold. Don't let the DE consistently beat you and you don't show any effort. As a coach, I think I would have asked our RBs to chip block him. But that's another story. I still believe we were the better team, minus the mistakes. Scoreboard is freaking amazing by the way. With Miami losing to BG I think we win outright now instead of the win-by-tie I predicted. Toledo won't be the same without Cody Thompson after he broke his leg. I seriously believe we still win the MAC. But watch out for Buffalo. That new kid can throw!!!!

ExCat21
General User

Member Since: 9/29/2014
Post Count: 1,124

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/9/2017 11:11:09 AM

Just my opinion but MAC refs are absolutely the worse refs in college football! It's like they have their own officiating association. Rourke got slammed several seconds after a pass thrown and Ellis gets his helmet ripped off in the end one by Conklin and no flags, however, Robbins hits the QBs chest first then his helmet made contact to the left side of his helmet and it's targeting. Absolutely horrible. I just had to say that!

Sam bobcat
General User

Member Since: 7/14/2015
Post Count: 633

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/9/2017 11:56:20 AM

ExCat21 wrote:

Deciduous Forest Cat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Ohio
Post Count: 4,411

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/9/2017 12:04:13 PM

ExCat21 wrote:

I'm all for safety of the players, but the targeting rule and its inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement is a complete joke.

bshot44
General User

Member Since: 2/12/2012
Post Count: 2,211

Status: Offline

RE: Nathan Rourke

Posted: 10/9/2017 2:52:01 PM

Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:

ExCat21 wrote:

I'm all for safety of the players, but the targeting rule and its inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement is a complete joke.

Especially when it's in the hands of the incompetent MAC officials

Showing Replies:	1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 199 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

195 Guests
4 Registered Users:
	BillyTheCat, ozarkcat, FJC31, shabamon

There are no other users looking at this page.