(09-08-2013 07:31 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  It's a good suggestion if we win but this is a message board. The point is, let's not act like Jeff Bourne and prepare for things in case they happen (your job) and not assume everything will go perfectly. In this case, you need to be paddling under the water esp. with Mickey's contract situation.

MM was a great hire back when we were a comfortable FCS school. No doubt he was a main part of the success we have enjoyed over the last decade that has led us to be an uncomfortable FCS school that is looking over the fence at FBS. Just my opinion, but MM was the man to lead us in FCS...but I don't think he is the man to lead us as an FBS startup. If we are going to step up and play at that level, we need to step up and hire someone proven at coaching at that level.

I finally made it back home. I wanted to burn Akron to the ground after that game, but there fans were so damn nice. Nicest people I've ever met.

(09-07-2013 10:58 PM)JMU_Newbill Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 10:09 PM)Potomac Wrote:  Shouldn't that play have been dead there at the end? Can someone clarify? Especially some of the fans who say they're okay with it.

Hate to defend the head ref, but 1) we appeared short of the 1st down, and 2) the umpire already got called out earlier in the game (picked up flag) for being a slow piece of **** and not getting out of the way after setting the ball. End of the game is on MM not having a timeout, not the officials.

How about not letting the referees' pace be a factor. Birdsong should have never thrown a short pass in the middle of the field with 15 seconds remaining. He has to have more savvy and throw to the sidelines or throw beyond the first down marker.
He is young. He will get better.
Mickey has been and always will be poor at managing timeouts. No surprise there.

Actually no. It was a big east ( now American athletic conference) crew that blew that call. Involved Toledo at syracuse

(09-07-2013 10:51 PM)hburg Wrote:  I wonder if you can file an official protest, not that it would do any good and probably make you look like sour grapes, but wasn't it in the MAC where they called a FG no good when in reality it was good?

Honestly, I think one of the things that hurt us the most was going for 2 after the first TD. You should never go for 2 until the fourth quarter; unless there is a glaring error in the defense that would allow you to walk into the endzone. It looks like Mickey has given Hunter permission to read whether there is an opportunity to go for 2 or kick it. Well, twice now it's been done and it has failed (once against CCSU and once against Akron). The 2 point conversions that were successful were done in our traditional offensive set. Mickey should just stop the 2 point conversion option and go back to kicking PATs after TDs unless 2 points are needed in the 4th quarter.

(09-10-2013 12:15 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  Honestly, I think one of the things that hurt us the most was going for 2 after the first TD. You should never go for 2 until the fourth quarter; unless there is a glaring error in the defense that would allow you to walk into the endzone. It looks like Mickey has given Hunter permission to read whether there is an opportunity to go for 2 or kick it. Well, twice now it's been done and it has failed (once against CCSU and once against Akron). The 2 point conversions that were successful were done in our traditional offensive set. Mickey should just stop the 2 point conversion option and go back to kicking PATs after TDs unless 2 points are needed in the 4th quarter.

That's ridiculous, especially in college where XPs aren't always automatic. If you can convert over 50% of the time, it's worth it. I would hope the Dukes can get three yards over 50% of the time. Where Mickey went wrong was doing the fake FG crap again. Just line it up straight on and go for it out of a formation you're comfortable in.

Advanced stats show that going for two every time makes more sense than only going for it when absolutely necessary. Same thing with going for it on fourth in short inside the opponents fifty. Coaches are just so risk averse because if what they want to do doesn't work all the time they know they'll get crucified for it.

I really think you should go for two EVERY time you score unless it's late in a game unless getting an XP will give you 4 or 9 point lead.

If you can't get over three yards 50% of the time, you probably aren't any good anyway.

(09-09-2013 05:07 AM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 10:58 PM)JMU_Newbill Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 10:09 PM)Potomac Wrote:  Shouldn't that play have been dead there at the end? Can someone clarify? Especially some of the fans who say they're okay with it.

Hate to defend the head ref, but 1) we appeared short of the 1st down, and 2) the umpire already got called out earlier in the game (picked up flag) for being a slow piece of **** and not getting out of the way after setting the ball. End of the game is on MM not having a timeout, not the officials.

How about not letting the referees' pace be a factor. Birdsong should have never thrown a short pass in the middle of the field with 15 seconds remaining. He has to have more savvy and throw to the sidelines or throw beyond the first down marker.
He is young. He will get better.
Mickey has been and always will be poor at managing timeouts. No surprise there.

how do we know that was birdsong's fault and not the receiver's?

shouldn't the receiver be running that pattern past the 10 yard marker? from Ginja's perspective, he has a split second to decide....he sees an open guy that LOOKS like he might be beyond 10 yards so he lets it fly.

Well, you can either rely on your young WR to make sure he is past the first down or you can rely on your young QB to know that the WR is past the first down and not throw a pass into the middle of the field if he isn't. Or you can rely on the refs to spot the ball in a timely fashion...


...or you can have a time out.

One of these is much more predictable and in your control.

(09-10-2013 12:23 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 12:15 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  Honestly, I think one of the things that hurt us the most was going for 2 after the first TD. You should never go for 2 until the fourth quarter; unless there is a glaring error in the defense that would allow you to walk into the endzone. It looks like Mickey has given Hunter permission to read whether there is an opportunity to go for 2 or kick it. Well, twice now it's been done and it has failed (once against CCSU and once against Akron). The 2 point conversions that were successful were done in our traditional offensive set. Mickey should just stop the 2 point conversion option and go back to kicking PATs after TDs unless 2 points are needed in the 4th quarter.

That's ridiculous, especially in college where XPs aren't always automatic. If you can convert over 50% of the time, it's worth it. I would hope the Dukes can get three yards over 50% of the time. Where Mickey went wrong was doing the fake FG crap again. Just line it up straight on and go for it out of a formation you're comfortable in.

Advanced stats show that going for two every time makes more sense than only going for it when absolutely necessary. Same thing with going for it on fourth in short inside the opponents fifty. Coaches are just so risk averse because if what they want to do doesn't work all the time they know they'll get crucified for it.

Wow! If it's such a successful formula then why haven't any coaches in the history of college football ever tried it. Certainly, if it's as easy as you say it is, why don't more schools go for 2? I'll tell you why. Getting 3 yards between the 20s is much easier because your play options dramatically increase. Conversely, when your that close to the goaline your entire offensive approach has to adjust.

Why, you might ask? Well, for one the defense can stack the box because they don't have to worry about the deep threat. The back of the endzone acts as a whole line of defenders. If you are a spread team, it's hard to spread the defense when they have less of a field to spread across. Thus, it allows the defense to to use the same 11 guys to defend a smaller space. Secondly, on a 2 point conversion, the defense knows they only have to defend one play from getting 3 yards. Unlike when an offense has the ball 1st, 2nd or even 3rd and goal from the three. When you have to stop a team from getting three yards maybe you should play your DBs off the WRs more than you would if you're trying to stop them from getting 3 yards on multiple downs or maybe you play your LBs closer to the line. There are many other examples that shift the balance to the defense on a 2 point conversion attempt, because of the situation, that I don't care to get into for the sake of brevity. But, I think this is enough to show that at the very least I'm not the one being ridiculous.

One final comment, if your approach worked, then it would also stand to reason that teams should go for it on 4th and 3 more times than not because, hey, if they can't 3 yards they don't deserve to win anyway, right?

Now let's go do some rootin!