BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: This year.

Topic: This year.

Author

Message

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 6:53:25 PM

I'm telling you, this team can be the MAC Champion this year.

D is there.

As the offense gains experience and opens up, it'll go.

Stay tuned.

Last Edited: 9/6/2014 6:53:59 PM by Monroe Slavin

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Mark Lembright '85
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,460

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 6:57:26 PM

I don't know about MACC as Ball State and NIU are better, or at least seem so, but I definitely think the MAC East is a very definite possibility. Akron's legit in the East, BG is imploding.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 7:01:07 PM

Agree, on the East, Mark...but stand by my remark on the whole conference. It won't be easy, but it's well within possibility.

In the chat room, after Kentucky was up 14-0 after 6 minutes, some said 'here we Louisville again.' Most did not buy that--and 'most' was proven right.

This has all the marks of being a really exciting year. This team can play.

Mark Lembright '85
General User

Member Since: 8/22/2010
Location: Highland Heights, OH
Post Count: 2,460

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 7:05:03 PM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Agreed! This team has fight in them!!

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 7:28:09 PM

This team did show a lot of fight in this game and they never gave up. The problem is this team has no playmakers and the talent level was not high enough to beat this opponent. Just thank God UK decided to try to run some kind of QB option after the first two series. My question is did we force any turnovers? Did we have any long runs? This offense is not good enough to win a MACC game. No way we beat a Ball State or CMU let aqlone an NIU or Toledo. And the East is up for grabs but it is by no means ours to win easily. I just hope we get a lot better as the season goes by. I really think we are somewhere between the 4th and 7th best team in the MAC now. Lots of teams have caught up and passed us by.

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,363

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 7:30:54 PM

For the last 50 minutes or so, the D held UK to under 250 total yds and six points. And considering the phantom TD on UK's first drive, the D really held UK to just 13 pts. Fantastic job!!

It's a bit disconcerting that the QB situation is still up in the air, but it should work itself out by the end of the month. In Vick's defense, he didn't get much help from his receivers today.

At the moment, Ohio and Akron are probably the top two in the East. If we get our offense ironed out, we should at least take the East.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,494

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 7:58:53 PM

Casper71 wrote:

... No way we beat a Ball State or CMU let aqlone an NIU or Toledo....

We won't need to wait for the MACC to find out the answer to that. Ohio plays CMU on October 4, and NIU on November 18.

I believe Ohio will be a lot better team by then than they are right now.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 10:00:19 PM

I must cite an official authority, being your L.C.

I believe that he has proven that O H I O contends for the MACC when the D is stout. This year, our D is stout. At current rate, I'll bet that our ppg given up will be markedly the lowest in the Solich era.

And, except for the tetivo over too much of the prior season and a half, our offense has always clicked. I think it'll click more and more as this year goes.

O H I O

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/6/2014 10:25:23 PM

Because this year our D is out there dynamic, flying round, hitting people, getting across the line of scrimmage, making things happen.

We all likey. We all likey very much.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,494

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/7/2014 9:12:19 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Correct. The three teams in the Solich era that had the best defenses all won the MAC East. Only one of those had a top offense to go with it (2011).

This team will be a battling team. Because of the defense, they will never be out of any game. If the ball bounces right at key times, a MAC East or MACC isn't out of the question, but if it bounces wrong, they may not accomplish that much.

Either way, give me a team that battles, and it makes for a fun team to root for, win or lose.

BTW, I'm betting Kentucky feels it today. They may have won, but they had to work for it.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Joe McKinley
General User

Member Since: 11/15/2004
Post Count: 486

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/7/2014 10:37:13 AM

I thought the defensive effort and scheme were very good yesterday. I think we used more run blitzes than we wlll in most MAC games and vs. Marshall, though. Our execution, especially in the first half, was not as good as it needs to be or will be moving forward. I was impressed with Quentin Poling's quote in today's Mark Znidar article in the Columbus Dispatch -- he understood what the problems were against the run and what we need to do to improve. Based on what I've seen on TV twice and read from pre-season camp, I think this group of players and the coaches are dialed into the same channel. I expect that we will continue to improve -- even with some setbacks -- throughout the season.

Offensively, I thought the schemes were good. We were outmanned in terms of lateral quickness which made it difficult to run wide or execute jet sweeps. We attacked vertically in the passing game when the opportunity presented itself, but didn't execute. We need to do a better job of catching the ball. Quarterback reads looked pretty solid to me for the most part, but we need to get the ball where it needs to go more quickly. We need a runner to step up and clearly be the first guy. I thought the line play was steady.

Bcat2
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/7/2014 12:29:34 PM

L.C. wrote:

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Correct. The three teams in the Solich era that had the best defenses all won the MAC East. Only one of those had a top offense to go with it (2011).

This team will be a battling team. Because of the defense, they will never be out of any game. If the ball bounces right at key times, a MAC East or MACC isn't out of the question, but if it bounces wrong, they may not accomplish that much. way, give me a team that battles, and it makes for a fun team to root for, win or lose.

BTW, I'm betting Kentucky feels it today. They may have won, but they had to work for it.

Yes and Jovon can take as good as he gives. There was the play that Kentucky's receiver caught Jovon unaware for a great block, Jovon sprang right up and tracked the receiver down to give him some type of "good job."

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,494

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/7/2014 2:05:25 PM

Bcat2 wrote:

I think Russ said he gave the receiver a "low five"

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/7/2014 11:56:54 PM

Monroe, I don't get the optimism.

This offense does not need experience...it needs better personnel. We took the field with a different caliber of athlete and the results were expected. Watching us on Saturday - and I hate to say it - but we have an FCS offense.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 12:58:49 AM

Paul--I could see how you could have that view from the two games so far this year.

So, let me state why I see more. First, there's the general cohesiveness and spirit. I know that's an intangible, so difficult to point to specifics. I see it in an offense that goes to the line snappy--no more looking to the sideline all the time even as we're at scrimmage. No more sense of a qb who isn't in sych with the coaches. And, we don't fall apart; we keep playing. (Yes, the play-calling could use a little more pizzazz, a little more motion/action...will we ever see a two-back set or the qb go under center?).

Next, our receivers, qb's,running backs and a good part of our O-line rotation (three true frosh!) are all seeing the field for the very first time or seeing substantial front-line responsibility for the first time. So, the first game, we fumbled four times. None in the second. So, we gained about no yardage for the first quarter or so against Kentucky. But we got some yards after that and our qb generally had more time to throw/was better protected than Kentucky's qb.

I'll bet you The Situation's posting privilege's for a week that about seven games from now (or less!) you will be complimenting our offense and agreeing that we have some ballplayers on the O side.

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 9:53:51 AM

Let's face it, the MAC East sucks in football. We play hard and all that stuff but in year 10 of a program and we are playing 3 frosh O linemen. that is a recipe for a difficult year. I thought in year 10 of this staff we would outdistance the rest of the MAC in personnel because of the pedigree of this staff. Instead, at least 4-5 schools are still ahead of us.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,494

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 12:25:43 PM

Casper71 wrote:

...in year 10 of a program and we are playing 3 frosh O linemen. that is a recipe for a difficult year. ....

Indeed, playing 3 or more true Freshman on the offensive line (Lowery, McCray, Pruehs, for sure, but perhaps Langenkamp and Pauley as well) is indeed a recipe for a difficult year, and I agree with you that it is surprising to be in this situation. Let's look at the line recruits that from the last few years.

2010 - M. Smith, Dietz
2011 - Welter, Lucas, Powell, Curtis, McQueen (plus Everhart, Williams)
2012 - Gibbons, Watson (plus Shilke)
2013 - Murdock, Wood (plus Adams, Alcorn, J.Willaims, Noltemeyer)
2014 - Lowery, Langenkamp, Pruehs, McCray, Dudziak (plus Pauley)

A couple players left due to injury (Smith, Dietz), and a couple for other reasons (Welter, Curtis). Wood is out for the season, and Gibbons and Everhart are out temporarily. That leaves Lucas, Powell, McQueen, Watson, and Murdock, and of these, all but Murdock played, but not all played for the entire game, for whatever reason.

How did Ohio end up here? It appears that it is a combination of some injuries, plus they probably should have recruited more offensive linemen in 2012 and/or 2013. They did add a lot of walkons in 2013, but those are young, too, and it hasn't helped much.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 12:42:24 PM

L.C. agree 100%. You can NEVER have enough O and D line guys. I think lately we have gone to recruiting more skill players and I get that with the offenses that are run today. However, without bigs to block and pressure/tackle, the recipe is not complete. Too bad we can't get good in the trenches on both sides of the ball at the same time!

Beat Michigan
General User

Member Since: 8/15/2013
Location: Almost Heaven
Post Count: 245

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 1:08:16 PM

Look out for UMASS, they only lost by three to Colorado. lol...

But seriously OHIO and UMASS do not play this year. What if both have the same conference record at the end of the year. Who wins the EAST?

SBH
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,254

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 1:16:28 PM

Casper71 wrote:

I couldn't agree more. Year 10 - zero league titles and we're facing a rebuild. Doesn't seem to happen at NIU or Toledo. It's great we're no long a league doormat, but I expected to be much farther ahead than this by now.

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,363

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 1:55:30 PM

Chris_PHS89 wrote:

Found this in 2011 thread through a Google search, but it probably still is right:

Divisional Champions

The divisional championship shall be decided on conference winning percentage. If two or more teams are tied for the championship, they shall be considered divisional co-champions. The following tie-breaking formula shall be used to determine which team will represent that division in the MAC Championship game:

1. Head-to-head competition

a. In the event of a multiple-team (two or more teams) tie, the team with the best head-to-head record amongst the tied teams wins the tie-breaker;

b. In a two-team tie, head-to-head competition will be the first criteria;

c. If two teams did not play, the second criteria is used to break the tie;

2. Record of tied teams within the division [versus rank order, highest to lowest, of division teams]

a. The above tie-breaker procedure is used to determine rank order in the division;

b. Team(s) eliminated in the second tie-breaker criterion are not included in further consideration in the tie- breaking formula;

c. Head-to-head competition is again used to break the tie between the remaining tied teams.

3. Comparison of conference winning percentage of cross-over opponents of tied teams;

a. Tie-breaker is awarded to the team whose cross-division opponents had the best cumulative conference winning percentage;

b. Head-to-head competition is used to break the tie between the two tied teams.

4. If multiple teams remain tied, the final tie-breaker is as follows:

a. Record of tied teams versus cross-division opponents in rank order;

b. Head-to-head competition is used to break the tie between the two tied teams.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 1:56:10 PM

SBH...you are gonna get crucified for saying that even if you are right (and I agree with you). I think this staff has hit the glass ceiling. I was in school and saw the last Champions play. However, I now fear I will not see that elusive second MAC Championship that I was sure this staff would bring us (at some point in time but within 10 years!). Just look at who has won the MACC game the last ten years and, as we all know, one name dear to us all is absent. But, I do have faith! Perhaps sometime sooner rather than later this staff and players will prove us wrong...just not this year.

Paul Graham
General User

Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 4:34:16 PM

Monroe, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have no doubt that as the year goes on the team will gel and we'll be more than competitive in MAC play.

My problem (also expressed by SBH and Casper, as well as Paul Graham for the past few years) is that we are dreadfully thin...and that is scandalous for year 10 of the Solich Era.

Our offense looks like an FCS team. Not necessarily the execution, but the athletes themselves. No one would confuse us for a P5 team, I assure you. And in that sense, its not a surprise that we couldn't move the ball against a P5 defense.

The quality of the product on the field is decidedly lower-tier MAC. If Solich can compete for the MAC East with that level of talent, then good for him. But for some of us, just competing for the MAC East at this point in the game is not enough.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,494

Status: Offline

RE: This year.

Posted: 9/8/2014 5:52:37 PM

Paul Graham wrote:

....
My problem (also expressed by SBH and Casper, as well as Paul Graham for the past few years) is that we are dreadfully thin...and that is scandalous for year 10 of the Solich Era.
...

All teams, even the very top ones, have years that are better than others. Everyone knew going into this season that it was going to take some time to gel. I see your complaint as more an indictment of the weak finishes to the years that should have been good, 2012 and 2013, rather than this team. Similarly, I think we can all see that 2015 "should" be a lot better than 2014.

I still believe that this "down" year can be a bowl year, so I'm not ready to throw them under the bus just yet. I want to see them keep improving from week to week, all year long.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Showing Replies:	1 - 24 of 24 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 453 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

452 Guests
1 Registered User:
	RufusCat09

There are no other users looking at this page.