(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:03 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 12:06 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  We haven't gained over 100 yards rushing in any game this season.
We are yet to hold any of our opponents to under 190 yards rushing.
QB play is decent, but he turns it over too much and isn't very talented. Receivers are terrible. Offensive line is beyond horrible.
Defense can't stop anything, mainly because they're on the field for the entire game. Teams run it at will, because they can. They can throw it against us too, but usually don't have to.
We turn the ball over way too much and our running game is as vanilla as you'll come across.
We don't sustain drives, which leads to our defense wearing down.
Linebackers are slow and not talented.
Defensive line has some players, but not enough to make up for the lack of talent everywhere else.
Secondary is young at CB and the safeties have underperformed all season.

How much do you guys attribute this to Fedora. The other guys haven't been around long enough to screw up the recruiting. Is it that Fedora and staff didn't recruit?

Blame can be spread to multiple folks honestly.
Current staff has shown very little ability to coach any of them up either.

MTSU's gameplan should be to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball. That plan has worked for our opponents thus far.

That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Rice beat us by 18 at home and honestly, they weren't very good.

So I wouldn't worry about much if I were an MT fan.

Even if we hang around for a while, we will shoot ourselves in the foot with a turnover, fumbled snap, or stupid penalty.

I live in Hendersonville. I heard the MT coach on the radio being interviewed about the game this morning and it was funny. He actually said our defensive front may be the best they have seen/will see. He is either the King of Coach Speak or in for a very pleasant surprise Saturday.

(09-30-2014 01:29 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Rice beat us by 18 at home and honestly, they weren't very good.

So I wouldn't worry about much if I were an MT fan.

Even if we hang around for a while, we will shoot ourselves in the foot with a turnover, fumbled snap, or stupid penalty.

ODU fans saying Rice is better than us, so who knows

(09-30-2014 01:34 PM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  I live in Hendersonville. I heard the MT coach on the radio being interviewed about the game this morning and it was funny. He actually said our defensive front may be the best they have seen/will see. He is either the King of Coach Speak or in for a very pleasant surprise Saturday.

Before a game everything he says is with one audience in mind. His players. He's not talking to the fans or the media. He only talks to his players. So, yeah it's coach speak.

Post game he tends to be a bit more genuine.

(09-30-2014 01:34 PM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  I live in Hendersonville. I heard the MT coach on the radio being interviewed about the game this morning and it was funny. He actually said our defensive front may be the best they have seen/will see. He is either the King of Coach Speak or in for a very pleasant surprise Saturday.

He learned snake oiling from Spurrier.

That must've been a slip. He meant worst.

(09-30-2014 01:38 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:34 PM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  I live in Hendersonville. I heard the MT coach on the radio being interviewed about the game this morning and it was funny. He actually said our defensive front may be the best they have seen/will see. He is either the King of Coach Speak or in for a very pleasant surprise Saturday.

He learned snake oiling from Spurrier.

I think it was Bowden. Bowden never had a team as good as the other team he was about to play. Stock doesn't have an ounce of Spurrier in him.

(09-30-2014 01:41 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:38 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:34 PM)goldeneagle21 Wrote:  I live in Hendersonville. I heard the MT coach on the radio being interviewed about the game this morning and it was funny. He actually said our defensive front may be the best they have seen/will see. He is either the King of Coach Speak or in for a very pleasant surprise Saturday.

He learned snake oiling from Spurrier.

I think it was Bowden. Bowden never had a team as good as the other team he was about to play. Stock doesn't have an ounce of Spurrier in him.

I meant Bowden. Had Spurrier on my mind. You are right Stock is direct opposite of Spurrier.
Bowden could be 10-0 going up against a 0-10 team and would say he lost sleep all week worrying about how he is going to possibly win the next game.

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  MTSU's gameplan should be to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball. That plan has worked for our opponents thus far.

That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  MTSU's gameplan should be to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball. That plan has worked for our opponents thus far.

That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  MTSU's gameplan should be to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball. That plan has worked for our opponents thus far.

That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

Minnesota never made any wholesale changes (i.e. putting the 2nd team in), because they weren't in a position to do so. If we hit FG mid way through the fourth quarter it's a one possession game.

Aside from general subbing the starters were in the game for the whole 60 minutes.

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:17 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  MTSU's gameplan should be to run the ball, run the ball, run the ball. That plan has worked for our opponents thus far.

That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

None?

We were the better team in the 2nd half.

You sound like you listened to Memphis fans a little too much, maybe you didn't watch that game either.

(09-30-2014 01:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

Minnesota never made any wholesale changes (i.e. putting the 2nd team in), because they weren't in a position to do so. If we hit FG mid way through the fourth quarter it's a one possession game.

Aside from general subbing the starters were in the game for the whole 60 minutes.

I was there behind the Minn bench. They started using reserves before the half. It did slow just before the 4th began but most of their bench got playing time.

(09-30-2014 02:02 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:18 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  That is our gameplan for every contest.

That said, if we cannot run the ball, we will lose.

Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

None?

We were the better team in the 2nd half.

You sound like you listened to Memphis fans a little too much, maybe you didn't watch that game either.

I watched the Memphis game. They pretty much throttled us...or do you think we even competed?

(09-30-2014 02:03 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

Minnesota never made any wholesale changes (i.e. putting the 2nd team in), because they weren't in a position to do so. If we hit FG mid way through the fourth quarter it's a one possession game.

Aside from general subbing the starters were in the game for the whole 60 minutes.

I was there behind the Minn bench. They started using reserves before the half. It did slow just before the 4th began but most of their bench got playing time.

You're trying awfully hard to explain away nearly 200 yards against a team that has held 3 out of 5 under 100.

And what does "scores and stats are not transitional" mean anyhow?

(09-30-2014 02:06 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:02 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:27 PM)MTtim Wrote:  Agree. We have 2 losses this year because we could not run.....and I'm still on the Fire Faulkner bandwagon.

Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

None?

We were the better team in the 2nd half.

You sound like you listened to Memphis fans a little too much, maybe you didn't watch that game either.

I watched the Memphis game. They pretty much throttled us...or do you think we even competed?

Try to keep up...

Memphis fans did all they could to dismiss anything positive about the Minnesota game, even though they didn't watch it, I was saying that perhaps you also hadn't watched the Minnesota game.

Memphis was a trainwreck and the only game we failed to establish the run in.

(09-30-2014 02:08 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:03 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:54 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Um... Minnesota is 4-1, only two teams have broken 100 rushing yards against the Golden Gophers, TCU, who beat the Gophers by 23, went for 169. We went for 190 which is more than Michigan and SJSU combined for.

That game was lost on the three play 14 point swing, not because we only rushed for 190.

How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

Minnesota never made any wholesale changes (i.e. putting the 2nd team in), because they weren't in a position to do so. If we hit FG mid way through the fourth quarter it's a one possession game.

Aside from general subbing the starters were in the game for the whole 60 minutes.

I was there behind the Minn bench. They started using reserves before the half. It did slow just before the 4th began but most of their bench got playing time.

You're trying awfully hard to explain away nearly 200 yards against a team that has held 3 out of 5 under 100.

And what does "scores and stats are not transitional" mean anyhow?

No need to explain anything. Each game is different. Think about it, maybe those other teams were way behind early and had to pass.
I am a believer that if team A beats team B by 50 points and team C lost to team B by 50 then that doesn't equate to team A beating team C by 100. Same with stats.

(09-30-2014 02:15 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:08 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:03 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:57 PM)MTtim Wrote:  How many of those yards were gained in the 2nd half when Minn had reserves in. My opinion is scores and stats are not transitional. Bottomline is if we can't run we have shown we most likely will lose.

Minnesota never made any wholesale changes (i.e. putting the 2nd team in), because they weren't in a position to do so. If we hit FG mid way through the fourth quarter it's a one possession game.

Aside from general subbing the starters were in the game for the whole 60 minutes.

I was there behind the Minn bench. They started using reserves before the half. It did slow just before the 4th began but most of their bench got playing time.

You're trying awfully hard to explain away nearly 200 yards against a team that has held 3 out of 5 under 100.

And what does "scores and stats are not transitional" mean anyhow?

No need to explain anything. Each game is different. Think about it, maybe those other teams were way behind early and had to pass.
I am a believer that if team A beats team B by 50 points and team C lost to team B by 50 then that doesn't equate to team A beating team C by 100. Same with stats.

Transitive?

(09-30-2014 02:18 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:15 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:08 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 02:03 PM)MTtim Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 01:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Minnesota never made any wholesale changes (i.e. putting the 2nd team in), because they weren't in a position to do so. If we hit FG mid way through the fourth quarter it's a one possession game.

Aside from general subbing the starters were in the game for the whole 60 minutes.

I was there behind the Minn bench. They started using reserves before the half. It did slow just before the 4th began but most of their bench got playing time.

You're trying awfully hard to explain away nearly 200 yards against a team that has held 3 out of 5 under 100.

And what does "scores and stats are not transitional" mean anyhow?

No need to explain anything. Each game is different. Think about it, maybe those other teams were way behind early and had to pass.
I am a believer that if team A beats team B by 50 points and team C lost to team B by 50 then that doesn't equate to team A beating team C by 100. Same with stats.

Transitive?

OK. So I've been drinking.