(09-09-2018 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:We certainly have not lost it by the margins that we did routinely under Bailiff.

With the fake punt from last year as the poster child, it will be excrutiatingly hard to to lose the special teams battle as bad as last year, mind you.

I mean realistically, this is like saying "Our students this year are much better at hearing the warnings of car horns" when your school last year was the Texas School for the Deaf.

Which fake punt? I remember the disaster short side option fake FG on 4th and 14.. but blanking on the punt.

Also I think I need an ice bucket to deal with the blowback of being in the vicinity of that burn.

(09-09-2018 06:24 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:We certainly have not lost it by the margins that we did routinely under Bailiff.

With the fake punt from last year as the poster child, it will be excrutiatingly hard to to lose the special teams battle as bad as last year, mind you.

I mean realistically, this is like saying "Our students this year are much better at hearing the warnings of car horns" when your school last year was the Texas School for the Deaf.

Which fake punt? I remember the disaster short side option fake FG on 4th and 14.. but blanking on the punt.

Also I think I need an ice bucket to deal with the blowback of being in the vicinity of that burn.

My bad, the FG.

Well I thought I had chosen not to follow the game and sleep instead, which I did try. But the iPad kept sounding every time the ESPN link would send something and although I never heard it my wife was up trying to find the iPad to shut it off. So eventually I got up and plugged earphones in, but being up I saw the results from halftime so had to go see the stats. Long story but I was awake about three or four times. I just watched the 3minute highlights in YouTube and on all of UHs scores it appeared we had guys out of position or taking bad angles and simply lacking speed backing away on their heels. You can’t play defense that way. Also from the final stats our third down performance was atrocious, so convert more of those and we win. This isn’t profound but the way to beat these quick strike offenses is keep the ball on long drives and score TDs every time. The defense has to get a few stops but fundamentally you have to score on every single opportunity, at least more than the other guys do.

(09-09-2018 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Good adjustments. Glad to have them


But I have heard so much here about being prepared or being unprepared, and it seems to me that needing to make adjustments in the first quarter means we were not prepared for what they did. If we had been, we should/would have been blitzing from the git-go. Or something different from what we did. But we were down 14 PDQ. What did Hawaii do on those first two drives that surprised us, and why did it surprise us? If it was something new they hadn't shown before, I can understand that. If not, then I am, as you say, ???

If giving up 14 quick points on two 7 play drives to start the game means we were prepared, then I need a new definition of prepared.

I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

Okey-doke, i can put into one sentence what I am saying. If you give up 14 points and 140 yards in 14 plays, THEN make adjustments, maybe you were not prepared at the start of the game for what they threw at us.

I'll put you down as very satisfied with our prep. Personally I would preferred that they force two punts.

Man , have you got a problem. What ever the discourse, you have to be contraraian. Obviously they thought that the opening defensive sets were the way to go. It didn't work, so they adjusted. Give it a rest

(09-10-2018 01:57 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

Okey-doke, i can put into one sentence what I am saying. If you give up 14 points and 140 yards in 14 plays, THEN make adjustments, maybe you were not prepared at the start of the game for what they threw at us.

I'll put you down as very satisfied with our prep. Personally I would preferred that they force two punts.

Man , have you got a problem. What ever the discourse, you have to be contraraian. Obviously they thought that the opening defensive sets were the way to go. It didn't work, so they adjusted. Give it a rest

I have no problem with calling it like I see it, so I guess that is contrarian.

I agree they must of thought the opening defensive sets were the way to go. They thought wrong. If they had discerned before the game started that we needed to blitz to take pressure off the secondary, we would have been better off. Do you disagree? I would have preferred starting with the better defense, and not giving them a 14 point head start.

I am very happy that once we adjusted, we played them even. It implies to me that had we started the same way we finished, we might still be in OT. Or we might have a win.

I am very happy with the adjustments we made, and very happy that we MADE adjustments. I just wish we had started the game better. It appears that that giving up 10 yards a play (140 yards in 14 plays) is OK with most of us. I am not so happy with it, and if the opening comments of the game thread are any indication, I was not alone then.

I guess there are two questions. Could we have done better? And if so, why didn't we? I think these are questions Bloom and his staff will rightly be asking themselves. Maybe some of you should be asking them too.

(09-10-2018 01:57 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 12:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I think you’re being slow on purpose, but again we had guys there but the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick. Our defensive line couldn’t get pressure without blitzing so we brought more guys after the first 2 series. It’s not unreasonable for our game plan to have been “our Dline can get pressure on their young Oline so let’s help our secondary by dropping more guy”. Well that didn’t work because we didn’t get pressure without a blitz and it doesn’t matter how many guys we have in the secondary when their receivers are faster.

so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

Okey-doke, i can put into one sentence what I am saying. If you give up 14 points and 140 yards in 14 plays, THEN make adjustments, maybe you were not prepared at the start of the game for what they threw at us.

I'll put you down as very satisfied with our prep. Personally I would preferred that they force two punts.

Man , have you got a problem. What ever the discourse, you have to be contraraian. Obviously they thought that the opening defensive sets were the way to go. It didn't work, so they adjusted. Give it a rest

You act surprised that OO is a contrarian. I mean, he did pick UTEP to win this last week. Isnt that a clue on the magnitude of being hit in the face with a 2x4?

(09-10-2018 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 01:57 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-09-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so in your opinion we were well prepared, just wrong?

No, I am not being slow, either on purpose or by accident. We had to make adjustments because the defense we had prepared was not working.

answer me these questions:
1. Should our defensive coaches have known we "couldn’t get pressure without blitzing"? If so, why not plan to blitz from the start instead of waiting until after we are down 14?

2. Should we have known "the top receiver for Hawaii was just too quick."? If so, should we have made plans to counter that?

It's not that we didn't have ways to counter the attack we saw on the first two possessions. We did. and we employed it...AFTER we gave up two TDS. If we employ it from the git-go, maybe we win.

1. No. We have an experienced D line going up against a young front for Hawaii. I’m sure every defensive coordinator wants to first try to get pressure without a blitz.

2. We didn’t get burned deep. We knew he was quick and kept him in front of us and they beat us on the slant.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to nit pick here. Our secondary is a weakness and we’re going to be able to scheme around that sometimes. The players still make the plays.

Okey-doke, i can put into one sentence what I am saying. If you give up 14 points and 140 yards in 14 plays, THEN make adjustments, maybe you were not prepared at the start of the game for what they threw at us.

I'll put you down as very satisfied with our prep. Personally I would preferred that they force two punts.

Man , have you got a problem. What ever the discourse, you have to be contraraian. Obviously they thought that the opening defensive sets were the way to go. It didn't work, so they adjusted. Give it a rest

You act surprised that OO is a contrarian. I mean, he did pick UTEP to win this last week. Isnt that a clue on the magnitude of being hit in the face with a 2x4?

I picked Rice too, so double 2x4s. I guess 55 years of being an Owl fan have made me partial to underdogs.

Also, I learned long ago that my "system" is not compatible with making money from bookies.

Sorry to be so contrarian, but I see little reason to post a lot saying "yes, yes, everything you said".