The weather was a huge factor as Houston stated. I just can't look at that game and say that's our offense. They obviously had to change the game plan due to the weather.
I think they chose the run to try to give them a longer field and the run to the outside to possibly take more time off the clock as opposed to a run inside. As for a pass, he could have been sacked and fumbled. The ball could have sailed and possibly a pick 6. I think they felt like it was going to be extremely difficult for Delaware to march all the way down the field in that amount of time with a gusty wind in their face. Up until that point our defense was doing a fantastic job. I don't blame them for putting the game on our defense's back.
The best decision that was made all day was on the coin toss to choose playing with the wind at the end of the game. There's a possibility things may have turned out differently had we faced playing into the wind especially that 4th quarter. There's zero chance Gray would have made that kick on the other side of the field.
There's no way we win that game with the defense of a few years ago. Defense wins championships, and we've got a damn good defense this year.

Sharp had 185 years - monster of a day, good timing for a bye (can we stop crying about teams having a bye before meeting us? it's unbecoming of deyukes)

(10-02-2017 11:30 AM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Sharp had 185 years - monster of a day, good timing for a bye (can we stop crying about teams having a bye before meeting us? it's unbecoming of deyukes)

I think it's a legitimate gripe. No team has had to deal with so many teams coming off a bye week as we have these last two years. Houston has actually spoken out about it multiple times. The last time was just a week ago (I believe) and it appears the CAA is going to be changing the way the scheduling is done so no other team has to deal with what we have had to deal with.

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

^ there is more ways than basically running the same play 4 times in a row to run clock... getting the 1st down would have been the perfect icing

^^ i'm not questioning the legitimacy of the gripe - i heard MH mention it once. That said - it's the mindset of "fine, we'll still prepare, play hard, and expect to win" that is more important ... the more we gripe, the less we have that mindset

(10-02-2017 11:36 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:30 AM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Sharp had 185 years - monster of a day, good timing for a bye (can we stop crying about teams having a bye before meeting us? it's unbecoming of deyukes)

I think it's a legitimate gripe. No team has had to deal with so many teams coming off a bye week as we have these last two years. Houston has actually spoken out about it multiple times. The last time was just a week ago (I believe) and it appears the CAA is going to be changing the way the scheduling is done so no other team has to deal with what we have had to deal with.

I think it was the lunch press conference before the Maine game that Houston gave the stat on how many conference opponents have had byes before they played us. If I remember correctly, it was over half last year, and we're 2/2 this year.

Just looked it up...

2016 Maine - bye
2016 UD - bye
2016 WM
2016 UNH - bye
2016 URI
2016 RU - bye
2016 Nova
2016 Elon

2017 Maine - bye
2017 UD - bye

Don't think we have any the rest of the year, but up to this point in Houston's JMU career, 6 of 10 conference games have been against teams coming off of a bye-week. That's either intentional, which is terrible, or it's unintentional, which would show SEVERE incompetence.

Why does it matter? There are 12 teams in the conference. We play 8. If 4 of the possible 12 bye weeks in the conference come before our games, that means that there are 8 post-bye-week games against the other 11 teams. So most teams might have 1...and some won't have any...but JMU gets 4? It's ridiculous. You're correct that's it's no excuse to lose a game (and we haven't in Houston's tenure), but I'd say in most cases it's worth more than home field advantage - which makes a difference.

(10-02-2017 12:16 PM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:36 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:30 AM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Sharp had 185 years - monster of a day, good timing for a bye (can we stop crying about teams having a bye before meeting us? it's unbecoming of deyukes)

I think it's a legitimate gripe. No team has had to deal with so many teams coming off a bye week as we have these last two years. Houston has actually spoken out about it multiple times. The last time was just a week ago (I believe) and it appears the CAA is going to be changing the way the scheduling is done so no other team has to deal with what we have had to deal with.

I think it was the lunch press conference before the Maine game that Houston gave the stat on how many conference opponents have had byes before they played us. If I remember correctly, it was over half last year, and we're 2/2 this year.

Just looked it up...

2016 Maine - bye
2016 UD - bye
2016 WM
2016 UNH - bye
2016 URI
2016 RU - bye
2016 Nova
2016 Elon

2017 Maine - bye
2017 UD - bye

Don't think we have any the rest of the year, but up to this point in Houston's JMU career, 6 of 10 conference games have been against teams coming off of a bye-week. That's either intentional, which is terrible, or it's unintentional, which would show SEVERE incompetence.

Why does it matter? There are 12 teams in the conference. We play 8. If 4 of the possible 12 bye weeks in the conference come before our games, that means that there are 8 post-bye-week games against the other 11 teams. So most teams might have 1...and some won't have any...but JMU gets 4? It's ridiculous. You're correct that's it's no excuse to lose a game (and we haven't in Houston's tenure), but I'd say in most cases it's worth more than home field advantage - which makes a difference.

Agree. I read somewhere (probably here) that the CAA had to revisit their Bye week algorithm because we were getting shafted.

(10-02-2017 11:36 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I think it's a legitimate gripe. No team has had to deal with so many teams coming off a bye week as we have these last two years. Houston has actually spoken out about it multiple times. The last time was just a week ago (I believe) and it appears the CAA is going to be changing the way the scheduling is done so no other team has to deal with what we have had to deal with.

The other part I believe I read at least one CAA team had no teams off of byes either this year or last year, while we had the three last year, two this year. That should never happen. The CAA was just not paying attention. I think a certain "mob-disliking" commissioner was still in charge when those schedules were set.

(10-02-2017 01:39 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:36 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  I think it's a legitimate gripe. No team has had to deal with so many teams coming off a bye week as we have these last two years. Houston has actually spoken out about it multiple times. The last time was just a week ago (I believe) and it appears the CAA is going to be changing the way the scheduling is done so no other team has to deal with what we have had to deal with.

The other part I believe I read at least one CAA team had no teams off of byes either this year or last year, while we had the three last year, two this year. That should never happen. The CAA was just not paying attention. I think a certain "mob-disliking" commissioner was still in charge when those schedules were set.

Correct

(10-02-2017 08:58 AM)Potomac Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 07:25 AM)Dukie95 Wrote:  I don't think enough is being said of the 9:35 drive in the 3rd quarter we put together when the wind was at our back. Denying Delaware the advantage of the wind by consuming nearly that entire quarter was brilliant (and such a Micky move). That also completely shifted field position in JMUs favor for the entire 4th quarter...any comeback UD had in them was going to be on the ground and in the wind.

That 9:35 drive is by far the longest of the season, previous long was 5:33 against ETSU

Yeah I actually thought about that as the game winded down in the fourth. Even though it was frustrating to come away from that long drive with no points, it's still important in a grind it out game like this to simply waste game clock and keep UD's offense off the field. Our defense also really needed a breather by that point too and they got it.

The best defense is an offensive drive that results in no points... is that a coaches' cliche?

I hate to nitpick but one thing that concerns me about Schor's clock management late in games is when he has the ball snapped when there is still 10+ seconds left on the game clock. These are games in which we have leads of 7 or mores points and we should be running as much clock as possible.

(10-02-2017 11:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

Clock stops with a turnover of downs... so we didn't save anything by running the ball except maybe a second or two by running a sweep?

(10-03-2017 11:47 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

Clock stops with a turnover of downs... so we didn't save anything by running the ball except maybe a second or two by running a sweep?

A first down would have ended the game. If Kloosterman had been playing, it would have been an ideal time to get him the ball.

(10-03-2017 11:47 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

Clock stops with a turnover of downs... so we didn't save anything by running the ball except maybe a second or two by running a sweep?

Every second counts, and the play avoided the potential of a turnover or blocked kick and return. An incomplete pass stops the clock, and poses the possibility of an interception or sack. Sure, a first down would have been great, however, running the clock and avoiding a turnover was of higher priority.

Honestly, I don't understand your obsession in second guessing MH's decision to play it conservative and run clock.

(10-03-2017 04:29 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 11:47 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

Clock stops with a turnover of downs... so we didn't save anything by running the ball except maybe a second or two by running a sweep?

Every second counts, and the play avoided the potential of a turnover or blocked kick and return. An incomplete pass stops the clock, and poses the possibility of an interception or sack. Sure, a first down would have been great, however, running the clock and avoiding a turnover was of higher priority.

Honestly, I don't understand your obsession in second guessing MH's decision to play it conservative and run clock.

I agree with your assessment except for the stopping the clock. An incomplete pass and a run on 4th down end the same way with the clock stopping. Especially with the gusty wind, a run was a much safer option. The ball could have sailed on Schor and could have given a UD defender the chance for an interception and a return that may have given them better field position.
I don't care for the play that was ran, but I get it. The defense was playing lights out and MH trusted in the defense to win the game, and they did just that.

(10-03-2017 05:57 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 04:29 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 11:47 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

Clock stops with a turnover of downs... so we didn't save anything by running the ball except maybe a second or two by running a sweep?

Every second counts, and the play avoided the potential of a turnover or blocked kick and return. An incomplete pass stops the clock, and poses the possibility of an interception or sack. Sure, a first down would have been great, however, running the clock and avoiding a turnover was of higher priority.

Honestly, I don't understand your obsession in second guessing MH's decision to play it conservative and run clock.

I agree with your assessment except for the stopping the clock. An incomplete pass and a run on 4th down end the same way with the clock stopping. Especially with the gusty wind, a run was a much safer option. The ball could have sailed on Schor and could have given a UD defender the chance for an interception and a return that may have given them better field position.
I don't care for the play that was ran, but I get it. The defense was playing lights out and MH trusted in the defense to win the game, and they did just that.

Thats been true most of this season, and I believe comments have been made about our offense giving up more points than the defense. The thinking could have simply been lets don’t do anything with a potential to give away points.

This was a tough battle in less than ideal weather, and I’d defer to HCMH’s wisdom 100 times out of 100 on this.

1st down seals it... certainly we have more than one safe way to pick up 3 yards...

But hey - its absolutely great that THIS is the debate.... remember the roller coaster just 2-4 years ago?

- mickey ball (at the end)
- pass more
- qb drama
- endless birdsong debates
- checking and rechecking the play from sideline
- weed and more weed
- not in my lifetime
- 18 to 24 mos
- withers is great!
- withers is a pompous jerk!
- our D should improve
- wow our D is somehow worse?
- SMU!!!!
- Libert / Colgate.....


This is the best era of JMU football... more more more

(10-03-2017 08:21 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  1st down seals it... certainly we have more than one safe way to pick up 3 yards...

But hey - its absolutely great that THIS is the debate.... remember the roller coaster just 2-4 years ago?

- mickey ball (at the end)
- pass more
- qb drama
- endless birdsong debates
- checking and rechecking the play from sideline
- weed and more weed
- not in my lifetime
- 18 to 24 mos
- withers is great!
- withers is a pompous jerk!
- our D should improve
- wow our D is somehow worse?
- SMU!!!!
- Libert / Colgate.....


This is the best era of JMU football... more more more

I won't ever miss that type of offense. The Duke game was the worst with both teams doing it.

(10-03-2017 05:57 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 04:29 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 11:47 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(10-02-2017 11:14 AM)5000DOLLARBILL Wrote:  don't understand why we didn't run a better play on 4th and 4 at the end of the game... let alone a field goal... maybe you are worried it gets blocked and returned, but there was very little chance that we were going to run for a first down there....I thought a p/a pass to tight end back of the end zone shoulda/woulda been the play call...

The sweep to run clock and avoid a turnover was the conservative, but correct call. A blocked FG run back for a score would have been a disaster. The point wasn't to score, it was to take time off the clock, avoid any mistakes, and leave with the W.

Clock stops with a turnover of downs... so we didn't save anything by running the ball except maybe a second or two by running a sweep?

Every second counts, and the play avoided the potential of a turnover or blocked kick and return. An incomplete pass stops the clock, and poses the possibility of an interception or sack. Sure, a first down would have been great, however, running the clock and avoiding a turnover was of higher priority.

Honestly, I don't understand your obsession in second guessing MH's decision to play it conservative and run clock.

I agree with your assessment except for the stopping the clock. An incomplete pass and a run on 4th down end the same way with the clock stopping. Especially with the gusty wind, a run was a much safer option. The ball could have sailed on Schor and could have given a UD defender the chance for an interception and a return that may have given them better field position.
I don't care for the play that was ran, but I get it. The defense was playing lights out and MH trusted in the defense to win the game, and they did just that.

Actually, the play should have been a BS punt aiming for the sideline at the 10, but making sure it flies way out of bounds. MM often let Rodney punt in this situation.