A couple of factors made us abandon the running game.
1. They dominated time of possession in the first half.
2. We couldn't stop their offense from driving for easy scores.

Here's our rushes in the game:

1st quarter:
-9 (sack)
7 yard run
-2 yard run
5 yard TD run
0 yard run

* We had 2 drives in the 1st quarter (12 plays for 67 yards, 7 points)

2nd Quarter
4 yard run
3 yard run
-1 yard run
2 yard run
-9 yard run (sack)

* We had 2 drives in the 2nd quarter (13 plays, 77 yards, 3 points)

We are down 23-17 (got a defensive TD) at the half.

3rd Quarter
18 yard run (the draw play)
0 yard run
1 yard run
-8 yard run (on 4th and 2)

* We had 3 drives in the 3rd quarter. 16 plays, 71 yards, missed FG.

Now we are down 29-17. Holtz said here that he thinks he abandoned the running game too soon. This is where USM started dropping 8 men into coverage.

4th Quarter
2 yard TD run

* 12 plays, 52 yards, 7 points (3 Interceptions)

(11-29-2016 09:30 AM)louisiana_dog Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 09:25 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  Of course you guys are right. It couldn't have been that USM played well on both sides of the ball for once this year as was expected from the beginning.

You are correct as well. Southern Miss played lights out and like a 9-3 10-2 team. Your record does not tell the quality of your team.

It does tell the quality of our coaching staff. No excuses for this team only winning 6 games. Hopefully this Tech win means there is hope for Hopson and his staff. They have been absolutely horrible in some of the games this year.

(11-29-2016 10:35 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  A couple of factors made us abandon the running game.
1. They dominated time of possession in the first half.
2. We couldn't stop their offense from driving for easy scores.

Here's our rushes in the game:

1st quarter:
-9 (sack)
7 yard run
-2 yard run
5 yard TD run
0 yard run

* We had 2 drives in the 1st quarter (12 plays for 67 yards, 7 points)

2nd Quarter
4 yard run
3 yard run
-1 yard run
2 yard run
-9 yard run (sack)

* We had 2 drives in the 2nd quarter (13 plays, 77 yards, 3 points)

We are down 23-17 (got a defensive TD) at the half.

3rd Quarter
18 yard run (the draw play)
0 yard run
1 yard run
-8 yard run (on 4th and 2)

* We had 3 drives in the 3rd quarter. 16 plays, 71 yards, missed FG.

Now we are down 29-17. Holtz said here that he thinks he abandoned the running game too soon. This is where USM started dropping 8 men into coverage.

4th Quarter
2 yard TD run

* 12 plays, 52 yards, 7 points (3 Interceptions)

I understand Holtz mindest of having to play catch-up but we hardly ran the ball any in the second half.
With 7-8 in coverage, a delay hand-off would have netted at least 5 yards, a pitch to Henderson or even a designed run for Higgens. Something other than what Hotlz was calling which was playing right into their defensive scheme.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Holtz is seeing as clearly as you NOW. What if he started running the ball in the 4th quarter down 12 and it didn't work. We would have thought he was an even BIGGER fool. "We are the 4th best passing offense in the nation, why is this fool running the ball?"

To answer the original question, I think we are overrated.
I do still believe we are in the upper tier of schools in CUSA, but CUSA is bad this year.
I think a lot of teams have been inconsistent.
I would love to tell you that Taylor and Henderson were not 100% (they weren't) and that was the reason we looked like we did against USM (it wasn't)

We just flat out got out played. It was very similar to last year. USM came into the stadium fired up and we did not. Shocking to me after our players spent the week running their mouths about what we were going to do.

I mentioned when Stockstill went down that any of us were an injury or two away from being in the same position. I think as a league we were much more susceptible to that this year and that is why we have seen such huge swings in position within the league.

I am afraid the last time Tech and WKU played WKU wasn't 100% and will likely be well rested and at home now. Not looking good for Tech.