September 6, 2016 at 2:58 pm #27874
This discussion isn’t about any single game. This is a discussion about the type of offense that is available given the personnel recruiting and abilities.
The real underlying theme is not Nick vs. Brad, but rather is a discussion of the coaching staff and its philosophies and choices; the QB choice (probably unfairly) is somewhat of proxy for evaluating the staff.September 6, 2016 at 3:02 pm #27875
Likely true Hawker. My point is that most of this issue should be focused on the D not on the O. Going forwardbDvis the key to this year not who is at QB.September 6, 2016 at 3:04 pm #27876
From that standpoint, the coaching staff is doing a remarkable job from the offensive. Not every QB needs to be a mirror image of Lum, Bialkowski etc. Nick has a different skill set and the coaching staff has done a very good job of incorporating an offense around that skill set which has been just as effective at putting points on the board as any of the QBs named earlier.
Bigger question: Caslow should be coming back this week. Kauffman had a monster week. Does he move to the outside now to replace Buskirk in the starting lineup?September 6, 2016 at 3:05 pm #27877
Agreed Rich that the real issue is D, not O (or QB for that matter).
Real issue is coaching, which determines D scheme and recruiting. Seems like we’ve got solid defensive personnel, but the scheme isn’t aligned to their strengths.September 6, 2016 at 3:30 pm #27878
Not on Shaf but he holds the ball way to long. His anticipation of routes or throwing guys open I just don’t really see. Some of those runs and scrambles are self inflicted. But he’s a baller for sure. I would like to experiment with both QBS on the field like Princeton or give Mayes a few series from time 2 time
Just my thoughts
I WANT WINNERS!!!September 6, 2016 at 3:38 pm #27879
[quote quote=27876]Bigger question: Caslow should be coming back this week. Kauffman had a monster week. Does he move to the outside now to replace Buskirk in the starting lineup?[/quote]
I agree very much that this is a very interesting question. Personally if I were the DC I would be very tempted to have both Kauffman and Caslow on the field at once, probably with Caslow at outside and Kauffman inside. Buskirk could get time in rotation when one needs a breather.September 6, 2016 at 4:15 pm #27881
put kaufman at rover??? he has nice speed, walked the kid down who ran over leaks and montgomery on that sideline run that was huge for monmouth. kaufman, cavenas had huge games. cavenas was everywhere. that fresh safety really struggled, craziness. im sorry, i got kauffman and harvey mixed up. harvey had a great game.
September 6, 2016 at 5:23 pm #27884
- This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by LehighGuy.
Well glad that week is over. Hoping for no more WTF performances. Too much drama here :-).
Dont like Ls particularly when its us beating us. Understand an L to a better team. Prefer beating them tho.September 6, 2016 at 7:04 pm #27885
Kauffman at Rover. No Way. He should be on the field but Rover. Absolutely not. Remember our rovers has to cover. Montgomery played rover and done really well there. Looks like he was matched on speedy #7 and didn’t allow a catch down field. Again we would fair better with a 4-2-5. The problem is too many kids play the same position and there really not interchangeable.
I WANT WINNERS!!!September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm #27887
Didn’t mean kaufman, meant harvey. But that’s what he plays. Leave Kauffman in. take out Montgomery, to small. They never threw at montgomery, just ran at him all day successfully. All plays down field were targeted at fresh safety. They completed them and dropped two wide open passesSeptember 6, 2016 at 10:10 pm #27889
Agree. KM covered his MU guy not glue. Problem is they ran at him. No shock he is the smallest of iur DBs. The nickel was overused by Botts. Harvey and LL give us better edge control. I repeat Botts is not comfortable in this D.September 6, 2016 at 10:25 pm #27892
Yea I agree.
I WANT WINNERS!!!September 7, 2016 at 1:49 am #27896
[quote quote=27889] I repeat Botts is not comfortable in this D. [/quote]
So the question is, if he is not comfortable with the 3-3-5 why the hell is he running it? It’s mind boggling, especially since he had success when he ran the 4-3-4.
September 7, 2016 at 1:58 am #27897
- This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by Lehigh74.
Agree. When he came in we were already a 3-4. In his dense he did not have enuf Dlineman for a 4-3. We do now. Got its tough switching systems. Perhaps a cipromise by installing a few 4-3 sets. I noticed a number of the 3-3-5. Ds I watched over the weekend had a Flex set with LB/ DE (Laub) at the R spot. Others ran a straight 4-3 set.September 7, 2016 at 1:02 pm #27905
The offense being shut down in first half was a big problem. We have a multiyear starting qb, rookie of year RB, and a really solid WR core. A half like that cant happen, I’m sure the players would wholeheartedly agree. Anytime our defense holds ANY team to 23pts would should pick up a W. We only had two Lehigh-like drives in the second half and as a veteran group, need to take command of the game with those drives from the jump.
Shaf did pull the ball down and run without even giving a look to check downs. As a senior qb, he must give the playmakers a chance. He hit Brags once, but that was a designed flare, not a check down. MU shot a strongside backer from the box on any read option, whether a run or play action. Result was poor pick up by OL (it was only five guys rushing after all), a stuffed run, or if play action, Shaf took off. Not that complicated. The only play they kept the LB off, we threw a bad pick. Shaf and Folmar needs to see this, adjust, and make plays. They will need to step up big time at ‘Nova, it wasn’t a great 60 minutes of execution. As competitors, they would be the first to agree. I think they get it done.
The defense, despite giving up big yards again, kept them to 23 pts. Should be enough. Worth noting is MU got all of their passing yards, save one post route, on bubble, screen, bootleg to TE stuff…not much downfield. I couldn’t immediately tell if that was MU only gameplan, their strength, or what we gave them or took away.
Grand scheme, this game shouldn’t mean much except for learning from it, moving on, trying to match up with ‘Nova and get after the Ivies on the slate. Big jump in execution this week at a CAA foe under the lights and we got a shot, but we have to play a full 60 minutes, play to our strengths. Coaches need to put our athletes in a position to compete.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.