(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

Watch the film again.......

(03-21-2014 06:38 AM)lingerba Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 08:44 PM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  We're taking about practice?

Yes, but earlier in the thread there were multiple mentions of the Spring Game.

I blame EW for making that quote in a spring practice interview lol.

(03-21-2014 10:24 AM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

Watch the film again.......

I did i repeatadly saw #71 called for holding.......

....and diving at the back of guys' knees.

(03-21-2014 01:51 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  ....and diving at the back of guys' knees.

Yeah that was his move the next play after he got beat or called for holding.

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

After Birdsong would often stand and stare for 4-5 seconds. Blame it on the WRs, blame it on Birdsong, but a lot of the pressure/hurries/sacks weren't the OLs fault.

(03-22-2014 12:26 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

After Birdsong would often stand and stare for 4-5 seconds. Blame it on the WRs, blame it on Birdsong, but a lot of the pressure/hurries/sacks weren't the OLs fault.

Yeah sometimes Birdsong held on to the ball to long....but also quite frequently he had pressure as soon as he planted his back foot. If he was not in the shotgun, he rarely had protection. Out of the shotgun Birdsong needed to get rid of it sooner.

The way I see it the weak spots on both sides of the ball:
- Offense - Oline
- Defense - Secondary

They both were less than average.

One player in the secondary single-handedly cost us two games last year. Fact.

(03-22-2014 05:02 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  One player in the secondary single-handedly cost us two games last year. Fact.

Can't disagree with that. All i know is that the secondary can only be better this season, b/c I think it is impossible for that group to play worse. I guess what I saw the most troubling was that their was little to no improvement as the season progressed.

(03-22-2014 12:34 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 12:26 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

After Birdsong would often stand and stare for 4-5 seconds. Blame it on the WRs, blame it on Birdsong, but a lot of the pressure/hurries/sacks weren't the OLs fault.

Yeah sometimes Birdsong held on to the ball to long....but also quite frequently he had pressure as soon as he planted his back foot. If he was not in the shotgun, he rarely had protection. Out of the shotgun Birdsong needed to get rid of it sooner.

The way I see it the weak spots on both sides of the ball:
- Offense - Oline
- Defense - Secondary

They both were less than average.

They offensive line was average. You can't judge them based on a couple plays. We average 5 yards a play. Averaging 4 yards a rush and 7 yards a pass. 39 touchdowns with 16 coming on the ground. Our opponents only had 30 sacks against us. We had 39 sacks against our opponents. Yes our 4 down % was bad and our penalties were bad also. But this was their first year with Coach Newsome learning new techniques.

Like I said before they were average watch the film. I expect them to be a little better with a spring and summer camp under their belt.

I don't have the film other than a couple games on DVR which doesn't show much. You need the coaches tape from the end zone to really break stuff down. The thing that showed me they weren't very good is they often looked overmatched up front against teams like Albany and Stony Brook which aren't even fully funded with scholarships.

(03-22-2014 05:02 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  One player in the secondary single-handedly cost us two games last year. Fact.

I'll take the bait. How do you figure that?

(03-22-2014 12:34 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 12:26 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:24 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  UMASS move on so I don't even think about them anymore. But that just proves my point on how tough our league is.

And I hear people say thing about the culture and program in terms of "soft", but to me it can only be referring to the players. And you still referred to some players as soft, which I still don't agree. And as for your #3 when you call a team soft and complacent to me it means that they don't play hard and don't care about the end results of games.

I say 9-2 because that leaves us losing to a BCS school and losing one conference game. Which is my expectation before every season.

Your theories about the play on the field I don't agree with. The line has been ok and the tackling has been ok. JMU has moved the chains fairly well, and 1,000 yards rushers means the line is doing something well. The issue is that MM playing was becoming predictable. Third and one 9 times out of ten Mickey is running the power in some sort of formation. So I wouldn't call an offensive line bad just because they couldn't get a couple of one yard first downs. Have to look at sacks , rushing yards , and QB time in the pocket. Which have all been to my standards average.

Also , this was the only year where I noticed glaring mistakes by the secondary. But then again they were young.

I like the attitude EW has he was to set the tone as a first time head coach. But be a forward thinker and make people forget about the last regime.

True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

After Birdsong would often stand and stare for 4-5 seconds. Blame it on the WRs, blame it on Birdsong, but a lot of the pressure/hurries/sacks weren't the OLs fault.

Yeah sometimes Birdsong held on to the ball to long....but also quite frequently he had pressure as soon as he planted his back foot. If he was not in the shotgun, he rarely had protection. Out of the shotgun Birdsong needed to get rid of it sooner.

The way I see it the weak spots on both sides of the ball:
- Offense - Oline
- Defense - Secondary

They both were less than average.

I saw almost every televised game with a CAA team, every team multiple times sans URI.

Secondary was horrible. Worst in the CAA. Certainly worse than the OL.

The OL was below avg for JMU, but compared to the rest of the CAA, the play was about avg.

(03-22-2014 08:31 AM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 12:34 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 12:26 AM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 08:18 AM)ShadyP Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 06:39 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  True, I specifically called out the O-line for being "soft". You say the line and tackling has been "ok" but "ok" is in the middle of soft and tough and "ok" is 6-5 seasons. No O-line was dominant and no defense was feared when they were "ok". I feel like you are arguing my point when you talk about predictability. If you know what I'm doing, and I know what I'm doing, it is purely a competition of who wants it more. Its not smoke and mirrors, its trench warfare. Our O-line was beat on the third and ones and as you said "ok". Again, I wont call them "soft" but I'm not calling them "tough" either.

Back to #3, Again, I never called the team soft or complacent so don't argue as if I did. I said "handful", 5, were willing to put in a little time (aka a little effort). I would argue that out of the 10 (or however many) guys that have quit you could find 5 that were complacent and when the regime changed, they realized it was better to walk away. I

Seriously though, I appreciate the thought out structured response without lols.

You think the oline was OK, seriously....WOW...I would hate to see what you considered bad oline play.

Last year the run blocking was not good, particularly in the short yardage - I want it more than you situations. And the pass blocking was probably worse - Birdsong was running for his life last year everytime he dropped back.

Saying someone is 'soft' does not mean they don't want to win - of course they do but what it means is when push comes to shove they are not willing to put in the extra, hard work to make it happen.

Let's quit giving the defense such a pass for being young, etc.......I have really heard enough excuses for the secondary's awful play. Being young does not explain why our CBs always played 10 yards off the line, back peddaling at the snap happy to give up the 5-10 yard pass on every play. There was ZERO improvement in the secondary all season long, and if anything they actually looked worse as the season progressed. I am really not sure how good the run defense was b/c no one would run against us if they watched any tape, why would they.

After Birdsong would often stand and stare for 4-5 seconds. Blame it on the WRs, blame it on Birdsong, but a lot of the pressure/hurries/sacks weren't the OLs fault.

Yeah sometimes Birdsong held on to the ball to long....but also quite frequently he had pressure as soon as he planted his back foot. If he was not in the shotgun, he rarely had protection. Out of the shotgun Birdsong needed to get rid of it sooner.

The way I see it the weak spots on both sides of the ball:
- Offense - Oline
- Defense - Secondary

They both were less than average.

They offensive line was average. You can't judge them based on a couple plays. We average 5 yards a play. Averaging 4 yards a rush and 7 yards a pass. 39 touchdowns with 16 coming on the ground. Our opponents only had 30 sacks against us. We had 39 sacks against our opponents. Yes our 4 down % was bad and our penalties were bad also. But this was their first year with Coach Newsome learning new techniques.

Like I said before they were average watch the film. I expect them to be a little better with a spring and summer camp under their belt.

Yep. Course avg shouldn't be good enough at JMU.

(03-22-2014 10:52 AM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I don't have the film other than a couple games on DVR which doesn't show much. You need the coaches tape from the end zone to really break stuff down. The thing that showed me they weren't very good is they often looked overmatched up front against teams like Albany and Stony Brook which aren't even fully funded with scholarships.

SBU has been at/near 63 schollies for about 5 years. That's why they left the NEC after the 2007 season to join the Big South so they could go full scholly. Heck, in 2011 they only lost @ NC game participant SHSU 34-27 in the second round. In 2012 they were a qtr final team that handily beat VU in the 1st round before losing @ Montana State 16-10 in the second round.

(03-22-2014 01:10 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 05:02 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  One player in the secondary single-handedly cost us two games last year. Fact.

I'll take the bait. How do you figure that?

Delaware and Akron. Fish on.

(03-22-2014 02:15 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 01:10 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 05:02 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  One player in the secondary single-handedly cost us two games last year. Fact.

I'll take the bait. How do you figure that?

Delaware and Akron. Fish on.

Yep. No need to mention names. Probably UNH & SBU also, as the secondary both those games in a group effort was HORRENDOUS.

JMU secondary 2013, by midpoint of season:
-Well below avg experience:
At corner top 3 were 2 rFr and a converted rSo WR who hadn't played corner since HS,
At safety a true Fr and a rJr (who certainly slumped for some reason).
-Think had at least avg talent.
-Bottom line horrendous play.

If JMU has avg secondary play goes at least 8-4, probably 10-2. Pretty good offensive #s, #1 in CAA against the run, #1 in sacks, dead last against the pass.

(03-22-2014 02:09 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 10:52 AM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I don't have the film other than a couple games on DVR which doesn't show much. You need the coaches tape from the end zone to really break stuff down. The thing that showed me they weren't very good is they often looked overmatched up front against teams like Albany and Stony Brook which aren't even fully funded with scholarships.

SBU has been at/near 63 schollies for about 5 years. That's why they left the NEC after the 2007 season to join the Big South so they could go full scholly. Heck, in 2011 they only lost @ NC game participant SHSU 34-27 in the second round. In 2012 they were a qtr final team that handily beat VU in the 1st round before losing @ Montana State 16-10 in the second round.

How ridiculous is it that we're even having a discussion and you're making an argument about how Stony Brook owned us on the line of scrimmage. I don't care who is offended about the guys getting soft, but they were soft. That can't happen.

(03-22-2014 02:15 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 01:10 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 05:02 AM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  One player in the secondary single-handedly cost us two games last year. Fact.

I'll take the bait. How do you figure that?

Delaware and Akron. Fish on.

I nicknamed him "Torch"! Can't let guys get behind you.