Coach isn't exactly mr. conventional.

(09-09-2010 11:31 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Coach isn't exactly mr. conventional.

He's mr. golden.

(09-09-2010 11:41 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 11:31 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Coach isn't exactly mr. conventional.

He's mr. golden.

I'm not thanking Temple (Miami fan here). Damn it CMU! It was supposed to be a big game, but I was dissapointed in both teams, but you couldn't ask for a better way to finish a big game than with OT.

Game Temple tried to give away.... Could have easily been a blow out. The clipping penalty away from the play (touchdown) followed by two missed field goals from a kicker that missed 4 last season, all in the first half (20-0 or 20-3). The CMU team reminds me of how Temple played 3 years ago. Hung around did everything right but just couldn't win against a better team. Nice effort by CMU, almost stole this one.

After a game like that i am not scared of Temple at all.. First of all that kick didn't even look good.. Temple has barely won two home games against an FCS team and a CMU team that most of us knew was going to struggle early on in the post Lefeveour era...

By the way those announcers were horrible.. If they call Bernard Pierce a Heisman Contender one more time, I was going to throw my TV out the window... There are at least 30-50 players in the nation that are more deserving than him.

1-5 buffalo will have Temple shaking in its boots.

(09-10-2010 07:32 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  Game Temple tried to give away.... Could have easily been a blow out. The clipping penalty away from the play (touchdown) followed by two missed field goals from a kicker that missed 4 last season, all in the first half (20-0 or 20-3). The CMU team reminds me of how Temple played 3 years ago. Hung around did everything right but just couldn't win against a better team. Nice effort by CMU, almost stole this one.

You could say the same thing in reverse. CMU had boneheaded penalties that stalled drives, tipped pass INT, missed FG, fumble after long gain and 5 trips to the red zone with 1 TD to show. I give both D's lots of credit for making the O's look bad.

(09-10-2010 10:03 AM)BullBoy Wrote:  After a game like that i am not scared of Temple at all.. First of all that kick didn't even look good.. Temple has barely won two home games against an FCS team and a CMU team that most of us knew was going to struggle early on in the post Lefeveour era...

By the way those announcers were horrible.. If they call Bernard Pierce a Heisman Contender one more time, I was going to throw my TV out the window... There are at least 30-50 players in the nation that are more deserving than him.

Actually I saw a lot oout of Temple that worries me after that game. They made stupid, silly, mistakes but mentally stayed in the game.

Both teams can make a case that they tried to give this games way, yet Temple never looked out of sorts...

But I am completely with you that the Pierce for the Heisman talk is getting really silly...

Lets see 30 carries for 132 (4.4 avg) and one touchdown after 2 weeks... I am assuming that he might match that in the next two (Decent shot of 100 yard game against UConn but Penn State should clamp down) so with 1/3rd the season over he may have less thant 300 yards and less than three touchdown..

You could say the same thing in reverse. CMU had boneheaded penalties that stalled drives, tipped pass INT, missed FG, fumble after long gain and 5 trips to the red zone with 1 TD to show. I give both D's lots of credit for making the O's look bad.
[/quote]


You can say anything you like... but CMU didn't have points taken off the board and were dominated by TEMPLE in the first half. Second half was about even.

If you think CMU played at the same level as Temple the entire game... your crazy...

Could CMU have won the game... and should they have probably won the game ... Yes. But the one thing I learned from watching 15 years of terrible football (Temple) is ... the better team usually wins. and once in awhile Temple would win 1 or 2 games even against some very very good teams. The better team won last night.

(09-10-2010 11:52 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  You could say the same thing in reverse. CMU had boneheaded penalties that stalled drives, tipped pass INT, missed FG, fumble after long gain and 5 trips to the red zone with 1 TD to show. I give both D's lots of credit for making the O's look bad.

You can say anything you like... but CMU didn't have points taken off the board and were dominated by TEMPLE in the first half. Second half was about even.

If you think CMU played at the same level as Temple the entire game... your crazy...

Could CMU have won the game... and should they have probably won the game ... Yes. But the one thing I learned from watching 15 years of terrible football (Temple) is ... the better team usually wins. and once in awhile Temple would win 1 or 2 games even against some very very good teams. The better team won last night.
[/quote]

It pains me to agree with VE but he is right here... Temple should have had at least 13 first half points, 17 if that clip does not happen...

CMU played a great second half (except in the redzone)..

(09-10-2010 10:03 AM)BullBoy Wrote:  After a game like that i am not scared of Temple at all..

I'm sure you'd feel the same way about Ole Miss or Florida, but they'd run train on you.

Hey, it's one game. It's over. The world doesn't stay stagnant, and neither will both of these teams (I hope).

Temple's defense is pretty good. They played half the game without Bernard Pierce, who was already nursing an injury. When Pierce is healthy they are very good. When he's not, they still have a good defense to keep them in any MAC game. They will be tough to beat, despite what you saw last night. Don't underestimate CMU's defense, which is the reason Temple's offense sputtered some.

(09-10-2010 12:39 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Temple's defense is pretty good. They played half the game without Bernard Pierce, who was already nursing an injury. When Pierce is healthy they are very good. When he's not, they still have a good defense to keep them in any MAC game. They will be tough to beat, despite what you saw last night. Don't underestimate CMU's defense, which is the reason Temple's offense sputtered some.

I was very impressed with CMU's defense - fast LBs who wrapped up and tackled well. They'll do well in the MAC again.

I saw an extremely sloppy game on offense by both teams actually.

Fumbles, missed fgs on both sides and in Central's case, poor clock/game management.

But, give props to Temple. They made the plays when they needed to and when it counted.... and CMU on the other hand did not.

It was a preview of the Championship Game

Could one really imagine MAC disgust if it was Kent V Toledo ?

(09-10-2010 11:26 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 07:32 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  Game Temple tried to give away.... Could have easily been a blow out. The clipping penalty away from the play (touchdown) followed by two missed field goals from a kicker that missed 4 last season, all in the first half (20-0 or 20-3). The CMU team reminds me of how Temple played 3 years ago. Hung around did everything right but just couldn't win against a better team. Nice effort by CMU, almost stole this one.

You could say the same thing in reverse. CMU had boneheaded penalties that stalled drives, tipped pass INT, missed FG, fumble after long gain and 5 trips to the red zone with 1 TD to show. I give both D's lots of credit for making the O's look bad.

I agree. I think Temple blew more opportunities, but CMU certainly had their fair share.

CMU's defense is very good, especially with their fundamentals, like tackling. I haven't seen a team tackle Bernard Pierce like CMU did last night. They stayed disciplined and didn't get hit with a big run. If Radcliffe can improve throughout the year, they should be very dangerous.

(09-10-2010 02:01 PM)Johny Sachs Wrote:  It was a preview of the Championship Game

Could one really imagine MAC disgust if it was Kent V Toledo ?

Well, based on last night, I certainly didn't see anything I would call championship caliber.

Temple looks the part, but they have some issues throwing the ball and decision making.

I was also reminded just how great of a college player Dan Lefevour was.....