OK folks, those who know me know that I have been involved with the game at every level from pop-Warner through the pros. With that said I would like to offer a couple observations from a completely neutral standpoint.
Everybody needs to relax. Most people have no idea what just occurred. A team that has been playing for only 2 years (this is their 3rd season on the field) with only 21 games under their belt, just went on the road and played the #1 team in FCS football, in their home opener after winning a national title, while raising their championship banner. Anyone remember last year Bama beating USC 52-6 on opening night, or Ole Miss 43-3, Miss State 51-3? Should I continue? I am not comparing JMU to Bama or ETSU to any of the others, but you have to take into consideration the whole situation.

I attended the game and saw a lot of good and no so good. The run D was very solid, so much so that the Dukes had to go to the air. That is a HUGE step up. They were solid up the middle and set the edge pretty well. Also, I noticed #45 was not on the field most of the night, as he was on the cycle bike on the sidelines. The run D did all that without one of their best defenders on the field. You have to grade that effort an A+.

Someone said ETSU needs more JUCO transfers. I submit to you that both your starting safeties are/were JUCO transfers. How did that work out last night against the pass? I’m NOT bashing the buc safeties! In fact, I think seeing that level of competition will only server to enhance their game – they just received a huge education that they will build on and use in the following weeks.

One glaring issue I saw was the ETSU corners. The bucs CBs never pressed the JMU receivers. Probably because the JMU receivers are/were 6’4 and up; whereas, the Bucs CBs are 5’8 to 5’10. That was a huge mismatch – but you can’t let them release freely. You can’t defend that aspect and the staff better get that corrected as other teams are going to see that film. The young CBs need to be coached up.

I was impressed with the OL protection. I admit, I thought I was going to see a jail break and an assault on the QB. The OL did a very good job allowing only 2 sacks against the #1 team. JMU had 8 tackles for loss, but the bucs had 5, so I’m pleased with that unit’s growth.

ETSU #7 threw an int, but that was not his fault. Receiver #9 literally batted the ball in the air… During the same type of route #4 caught it, bobbled it, and then fumbled it. Luckily ETSU recovered it. It looked to me as the QB only looked in one direction the entire night. He never scanned the field. He threw where he looked and never looked off. That could have been nerves, but I think the plan was to get rid of the ball fast and short. I think that decision could/should have been changed based on the solid play of the OL. I would have liked to see some better pay calling of plus 5.

Receivers: Again there was no looking off. A lot of the backside receivers we open. With the exception of #80 who had a great catch down the sideline, some of the folks they put out there were open but never saw the ball thrown their way (#17, #88, #89). I saw 88 and 89 break open with no safety over the top and the ball was thrown to a 5yd out without any contemplation of the rest of the field.

Another observation I had was that I’m not sure how much coaching the ETSU DBs and WRs are doing. It looked like the WRs did not know or show how to get off of press man coverage. The fundamentals appeared missing. The DBs didn’t look like they knew how to change up the coverage or press man. That is one of those questions that can only be answered by a player.

Lastly: This as this is way too long – the penalties on ST buried them in the shadow of the goal posts all night. I noticed the lack of penalties called against the O and D – so take that as a positive.

Remember - it's all about progression. Be worried if they were regressing. They are not. This game will be looked back on by the staff and players as a BIG TIME step, and well needed growing pain.

I thought your team played well. They played hard and tough throughout the entire game. The only team to really stop our run last year was the first New Hampshire game and we killed them with a great passing game (until the freaky scary ending that made it close.) I have concerns about our running game after yesterday. But we have a component of 3 new younger players starting. I am hoping they get better each week.

As an aside during my work days, I had many trips to Johnson City and east Tennessee is a favorite area of mine. Like most JMU posters we are not pleased with posts like that one coming from our fans. Please disregard and beat The Citadel!

During games threads, I often post reactionary things when I get mad. Deleted the post shortly after because it reflected badly on my character.

(09-10-2017 11:46 AM)Spector Wrote:  OK folks, those who know me know that I have been involved with the game at every level from pop-Warner through the pros. With that said I would like to offer a couple observations from a completely neutral standpoint.
Everybody needs to relax. Most people have no idea what just occurred. A team that has been playing for only 2 years (this is their 3rd season on the field) with only 21 games under their belt, just went on the road and played the #1 team in FCS football, in their home opener after winning a national title, while raising their championship banner. Anyone remember last year Bama beating USC 52-6 on opening night, or Ole Miss 43-3, Miss State 51-3? Should I continue? I am not comparing JMU to Bama or ETSU to any of the others, but you have to take into consideration the whole situation.

I attended the game and saw a lot of good and no so good. The run D was very solid, so much so that the Dukes had to go to the air. That is a HUGE step up. They were solid up the middle and set the edge pretty well. Also, I noticed #45 was not on the field most of the night, as he was on the cycle bike on the sidelines. The run D did all that without one of their best defenders on the field. You have to grade that effort an A+.

Someone said ETSU needs more JUCO transfers. I submit to you that both your starting safeties are/were JUCO transfers. How did that work out last night against the pass? I’m NOT bashing the buc safeties! In fact, I think seeing that level of competition will only server to enhance their game – they just received a huge education that they will build on and use in the following weeks.

One glaring issue I saw was the ETSU corners. The bucs CBs never pressed the JMU receivers. Probably because the JMU receivers are/were 6’4 and up; whereas, the Bucs CBs are 5’8 to 5’10. That was a huge mismatch – but you can’t let them release freely. You can’t defend that aspect and the staff better get that corrected as other teams are going to see that film. The young CBs need to be coached up.

I was impressed with the OL protection. I admit, I thought I was going to see a jail break and an assault on the QB. The OL did a very good job allowing only 2 sacks against the #1 team. JMU had 8 tackles for loss, but the bucs had 5, so I’m pleased with that unit’s growth.

ETSU #7 threw an int, but that was not his fault. Receiver #9 literally batted the ball in the air… During the same type of route #4 caught it, bobbled it, and then fumbled it. Luckily ETSU recovered it. It looked to me as the QB only looked in one direction the entire night. He never scanned the field. He threw where he looked and never looked off. That could have been nerves, but I think the plan was to get rid of the ball fast and short. I think that decision could/should have been changed based on the solid play of the OL. I would have liked to see some better pay calling of plus 5.

Receivers: Again there was no looking off. A lot of the backside receivers we open. With the exception of #80 who had a great catch down the sideline, some of the folks they put out there were open but never saw the ball thrown their way (#17, #88, #89). I saw 88 and 89 break open with no safety over the top and the ball was thrown to a 5yd out without any contemplation of the rest of the field.

Another observation I had was that I’m not sure how much coaching the ETSU DBs and WRs are doing. It looked like the WRs did not know or show how to get off of press man coverage. The fundamentals appeared missing. The DBs didn’t look like they knew how to change up the coverage or press man. That is one of those questions that can only be answered by a player.

Lastly: This as this is way too long – the penalties on ST buried them in the shadow of the goal posts all night. I noticed the lack of penalties called against the O and D – so take that as a positive.

Remember - it's all about progression. Be worried if they were regressing. They are not. This game will be looked back on by the staff and players as a BIG TIME step, and well needed growing pain.

As always, your opinion and analysis are appreciated.

Our CBs indeed played some soft coverage. It was like our game plan was to make the field long for JMU and hope they wouldn't score quick each possession.

Our run defense looked promising. If that performance meant anything, it means we might stay close with a few SoCon teams where we didn't last year.

It seemed like we committed a penalty every kick return. Gotta work on that.

(09-10-2017 07:46 PM)prosec34 Wrote:  Our CBs indeed played some soft coverage. It was like our game plan was to make the field long for JMU and hope they wouldn't score quick each possession.

Our run defense looked promising. If that performance meant anything, it means we might stay close with a few SoCon teams where we didn't last year.

It seemed like we committed a penalty every kick return. Gotta work on that.

Thank you, prosec34, for your detailed take on the earlier post. I agree with virtually all of it, but will nibble on the edges just a bit, mostly on the negatives.

Yes, certainly the corners were a huge weakness, and since it continued the whole game, one must conclude that that was likely a coaching decision. You don't give guys 8-10 yds. the whole game, while continually being burned underneath. By extension.......one concludes, similarly to the way you expressed it just above, that a "bend but don't break" philosophy was at work in that realm. For whatever reason(s), the coaching staff decided that they'd rather give up 20-30 first downs rather than 4-6-8 long bombs. And really, that's an very understandable stance. With the relative success in stopping the run, not a bad game plan on that side of the ball. The problem was that Schor and his receiving corps were just flat-out good, and were more than willing to take what we were giving them - again and again and again. A "pick your poison" scenario. Can't fault the staff for having a decent plan. Likely gave us the best chance of pulling an upset, unlikely as that was.

I consider the punt coverage to be the absolute worst facet of the ETSU game that day. Repeatedly seams aplenty were available. On two of those long runbacks, I could see what was gonna happen by the time the catch was made. No doubt the coaches know this, and hopefully corrective action can be taken. Just from *my* point of view (and philosophy), it's better to have a bit more speed covering punts (and kickoffs, too) and give up some weight. It's a balance one must achieve, and my opinion is that more speed and maneuverability was/is needed. But you've also got to teach and enforce the lanes - obviously harder to do than say. JMU's blocking schemes on the runbacks were textbook.

I would quibble slightly on the OL. They weren't terrible, but they allowed a tremendous number of "hurries". And Herinck also should have gotten rid of those 2 earlier before taking the sack. Split seconds there are critical, but he and the staff know that. As to Herinck further....you definitely are correct that he often, or almost always, only looked at one receiver. Much of that is due to the fact he didn't have *time* to scan the field, but on a few occasions he did, yet was already locked in. That's a *really* hard thing to do though, in the heat of battle. That's one of the key differences in being a good QB and a great one. Further still, in that vein, you're also right that the short throws were a big part of the game plan. Not challenging deep a bit more allowed the box to be stuffed a little more than otherwise. But when you expect the QB to have little time, that's an understandable strategy. And you are correct yet again in noting that when the OL was holding up "ok" (that's what I'll call it), then there should have been more effort to try the over-the-middle mid-routes - or deep. Herinck's deep throw that one play was on the money. Again, that's a balance to be struck, and why there's a coach out there named Torbush.

I will again (someone already did so) compliment the team on few penalties in the normal formations. Good discipline there.

Lot to build on; lot to improve on; lot to learn from. And I'll say it again, JMU is clearly a far better team, but I feel we belonged on the field with them. We did *not* resemble a high school team, as one wag suggested.
We're likely about where we should be at this point. Probably overachieved last year, but we knew that. Go Bucs.

Our good friends in Harrisonburg put 75 on the board against Norfolk State today. 472 rushing yards.