The Good:

Pretty much everything.
O-Line++

The Bad:

Beaten on trick play and long run to set up their scores.
KO coverage (again).
That 3 & Out in the 2nd half. WTF was up with that?

The Ugly:

Palmer injury.

(11-10-2019 08:39 PM)DooX Wrote:  The Good:

Pretty much everything.
O-Line++

The Bad:

Beaten on trick play and long run to set up their scores.
KO coverage (again).
That 3 & Out in the 2nd half. WTF was up with that?

The Ugly:

Palmer injury.

I don't think we're kicking it deep enough. It needs to land as close to the goal line as possible. A couple of those fell close to the 10.

(11-10-2019 07:27 AM)Potomac Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 03:32 PM)fishingduke12 Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 03:32 PM)Dignan Wrote:  Fantastic. No audio to start with on Flo.

No audio on madizone either

Stop! By pointing out its madizone with the technical issue and not FLO, you make their angry outbursts look silly.

“Their angry outbursts?” I made one frustrated statement of fact and now I’m the silly, angry mob? After I posted I checked out Madizone and saw the problem was at the source.

(11-10-2019 11:44 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 08:39 PM)DooX Wrote:  The Good:

Pretty much everything.
O-Line++

The Bad:

Beaten on trick play and long run to set up their scores.
KO coverage (again).
That 3 & Out in the 2nd half. WTF was up with that?

The Ugly:

Palmer injury.

I don't think we're kicking it deep enough. It needs to land as close to the goal line as possible. A couple of those fell close to the 10.

It's been like that all year, he cant kick it into the endzone routinely

(11-11-2019 07:05 AM)fishingduke12 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 11:44 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 08:39 PM)DooX Wrote:  The Good:

Pretty much everything.
O-Line++

The Bad:

Beaten on trick play and long run to set up their scores.
KO coverage (again).
That 3 & Out in the 2nd half. WTF was up with that?

The Ugly:

Palmer injury.

I don't think we're kicking it deep enough. It needs to land as close to the goal line as possible. A couple of those fell close to the 10.

It's been like that all year, he cant kick it into the endzone routinely

Well, crap...

(11-09-2019 05:57 PM)JMUPride Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 05:45 PM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 05:44 PM)JMUPride Wrote:  Feed down for me too...

What is this? 1995? I have to be at the actual game to see it?

Who do I have to get a hold of at JMU to chew out about FloSports?

This isn’t a Flo issue it’s a jmu issue. The madizone feed is down

No its a Flo issue... Madizone is up but no audio... Flo is still buffering... I tried 2 diff computers and my phone

You realize both Flo and Madizone are using the same feeds supplied to them just splitting the feed to the different venues and it's the same cameras, audio from the trailers parked in Godwin. One goes to JMU internet feed (Madizone) the other is to a Fiber feed to the outside world for Flo to distribute. a lot of time there is not even an announcer on site they are sitting in a office space miles away viewing the same thing you are. Modern times and they don't have to pay for Hotels and travel anymore. At least Madizone has commentators on site.

My takes after taking in my first game in person this year.

The crowd was pretty sparse to start the game but I thought it was decent in the 2nd QTR.
I've attended much colder games at JMU and NFL including the Sam Houston playoff game but this game somehow felt colder. I think in part because many, myself included, did not prepare for a cold game. I saw 40's and thought it would be nice but it was pretty chilly.
I have not seen the replay but live it looked like the trick play was just a numbers issue. The WR on the left motioned and you could see we were in zone coverage and it appears the CB on the far side got caught with 1 too many guys to cover. There was nobody near that WR when he caught it though.
The deep balls by Nooch were nice but a couple would've been a little better if the guys were hit in stride.
From where I sat I thought the targeting was obvious and as soon as it happened I said "how was that not a flag?" I then turned to my wife and said they're gonna take another look at this I bet and that player will get ejected. I did not have a great angle but from where I sat the QB took a awkward kneel/slide and a half second later we popped him in the head.
The KO coverage was good I thought but the kicks were terrible. I thought the guys did a good job staying in their lanes and preventing a big run but the return man was on the 20 by the time we even got there. The kicks were low and short which is deadly. A good KO return man would've eaten that up.
I had read before the game that their QB couldn't run and that was very evident. We actually, I am sure by design, gave him the run all day and he never wanted it. It seemed like on the targeting call he should have easily run for that first down but for whatever reason he was A) shockingly slow and B)had terrible awareness of how to run and where the first down marker was.

I think this game along with Weber's struggles should shore up the 2 seed for us considering we win out.

(11-09-2019 10:23 PM)2Buck Wrote:  Regarding the targeting, the call was correct, but the rule is too black and white. There has to be consideration for incidental vs intentional (or at least poor judgement). No way should a player be ejected for incidental.

Until (and if) helmet technology ever eliminates these things, especially amateur football is going to be overcautious when it comes to the health of these kids. But the replay technology is pretty consistent in determining if it was the fault of the tackler or just circumstance. A player can't change the law of physics to avoid an improper hit.

But, if there were a hit like that on Nooch the same people on here calling BS would be looking for blood if that was a non-call.

Huge agree that the rule needs tweaking. It was targeting this week and however they got there, they got it right. But seeing it live, Holloway turns around after the play takes him outside and sees a QB running free up the middle. He goes to tackle him and the kid makes the most awkward kneel/slide since RGIII. And short of the marker, which I'm sure Holloway never thought he would in that minute. Again, it was targeting by the rule, but not malicious. 15 yards = fair. But the ejection when there's no malice is what makes these crazy. The penalty does not fit the crime. The rule looks doubly bad when you see a play like that super-dirty hit by the Alabama O-Lineman after the turnover. That gets 15 yards, but no ejection, when that is a million times more malicious/dangerous than the Holloway play.

Do any of you really want the referees trying to determine intent? They struggle enough as it is. I don't want them having more decision points. Also, the rule is there for player safety. The intelligent thing to do is avoid hitting above the shoulders all the time thereby protecting both players and avoiding the targeting call. But, sometimes things happen.

(11-11-2019 11:24 AM)AllForDukes Wrote:  Do any of you really want the referees trying to determine intent? They struggle enough as it is. I don't want them having more decision points. Also, the rule is there for player safety. The intelligent thing to do is avoid hitting above the shoulders all the time thereby protecting both players and avoiding the targeting call. But, sometimes things happen.

What happens when the player with the ball decides to slide or dive at the last minute? Or is in mid tackle by another player and falling over?

The referee wouldn't even have to make the call on the field. Every targeting call could start with a penalty flag. Referee could say 'targeting until further review'. Video replay could determine if it is no targeting, targeting with 15 yard penalty or targeting with 15 yard penalty and ejection. Ejection only occurring when malicious, appeared intent, leading with the crown instead of face mask, defenseless ball carrier, etc.

A change like this would not even be a hard rule to implement, as the on-field referees wouldn't have to do any more than they already do. Player safety would not be compromised, as any helmet to helmet collision would be a penalty (with or without ejection), therefore punishing the occurances.

Leading with your crown on a wide receiver defenseless and in the air...go ahead and eject him for that. But it's impossible for someone (leading with their facemask up) to change direction mid-dive to avoid a head on collision because the player with the football decided to slide or dive. That is the flaw in the current rule. The player with the football is actually sometimes the "deciding factor" on whether it is a head to head collision, as they were the one that decided last minute to bring their head from 6' high to 3' high in the air. That's just not fair to the person getting ejected.

EDIT: And I doubt anyone here is actually questioning whether it was targeting by the rule. However, there are lots of people, me included, who think the rule is just bad. So was it targeting on paper...yes. Was Holloway "targeting" the quarterback...in no universe. There are hundreds of helmet collisions every game in football, yet only the ones with a ball carrier involved get targeting. So is it actually protecting people or is it just perception? Because I've never seen an off ball helmet to helmet targeting call.

(11-11-2019 07:05 AM)fishingduke12 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 11:44 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  I don't think we're kicking it deep enough. It needs to land as close to the goal line as possible. A couple of those fell close to the 10.

It's been like that all year, he cant kick it into the endzone routinely

Hard to know if he can't or is being coached to take some off to try and land it in the corner and entice a return. One thing I've noticed is that teams aren't FC-ing anymore and getting it at the 25. I'm pretty sure UNH didn't, anyway. That makes me wonder if teams are seeing something in our coverage they can take advantage of, because right now that seems to be happening pretty frequently.

The reason no ref threw the flag was because they knew he left his feet awkwardly and late.

(11-11-2019 11:09 AM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  

(11-09-2019 10:23 PM)2Buck Wrote:  Regarding the targeting, the call was correct, but the rule is too black and white. There has to be consideration for incidental vs intentional (or at least poor judgement). No way should a player be ejected for incidental.

Until (and if) helmet technology ever eliminates these things, especially amateur football is going to be overcautious when it comes to the health of these kids. But the replay technology is pretty consistent in determining if it was the fault of the tackler or just circumstance. A player can't change the law of physics to avoid an improper hit.

But, if there were a hit like that on Nooch the same people on here calling BS would be looking for blood if that was a non-call.

Huge agree that the rule needs tweaking. It was targeting this week and however they got there, they got it right. But seeing it live, Holloway turns around after the play takes him outside and sees a QB running free up the middle. He goes to tackle him and the kid makes the most awkward kneel/slide since RGIII. And short of the marker, which I'm sure Holloway never thought he would in that minute. Again, it was targeting by the rule, but not malicious. 15 yards = fair. But the ejection when there's no malice is what makes these crazy. The penalty does not fit the crime. The rule looks doubly bad when you see a play like that super-dirty hit by the Alabama O-Lineman after the turnover. That gets 15 yards, but no ejection, when that is a million times more malicious/dangerous than the Holloway play.

Right call and I thought it when I saw it live. Holloway knew it as well. He was looking around after the hit. I know it was not his intention, but it is the type of hit they are trying to limit in football because it can cause lifetime effects on someone's health. I don't think that is a hit you tweak to make legal. It makes all the sense in the world to error on the safe side. I've seen targeting I did not agree with, but that was not one.

I dont' even think it was a slide he like dropped to his knees.

(11-11-2019 09:01 AM)doubleduke2016 Wrote:  My takes after taking in my first game in person this year.

The crowd was pretty sparse to start the game but I thought it was decent in the 2nd QTR.
I've attended much colder games at JMU and NFL including the Sam Houston playoff game but this game somehow felt colder. I think in part because many, myself included, did not prepare for a cold game. I saw 40's and thought it would be nice but it was pretty chilly.
I have not seen the replay but live it looked like the trick play was just a numbers issue. The WR on the left motioned and you could see we were in zone coverage and it appears the CB on the far side got caught with 1 too many guys to cover. There was nobody near that WR when he caught it though.
The deep balls by Nooch were nice but a couple would've been a little better if the guys were hit in stride.
From where I sat I thought the targeting was obvious and as soon as it happened I said "how was that not a flag?" I then turned to my wife and said they're gonna take another look at this I bet and that player will get ejected. I did not have a great angle but from where I sat the QB took a awkward kneel/slide and a half second later we popped him in the head.
The KO coverage was good I thought but the kicks were terrible. I thought the guys did a good job staying in their lanes and preventing a big run but the return man was on the 20 by the time we even got there. The kicks were low and short which is deadly. A good KO return man would've eaten that up.
I had read before the game that their QB couldn't run and that was very evident. We actually, I am sure by design, gave him the run all day and he never wanted it. It seemed like on the targeting call he should have easily run for that first down but for whatever reason he was A) shockingly slow and B)had terrible awareness of how to run and where the first down marker was.

I think this game along with Weber's struggles should shore up the 2 seed for us considering we win out.

Looked to me like the backup safety in place of Amos, MJ Hampton #32, who was put the 1st half, due to Amos having to sit the 1st half, due to his 2nd half targeting vs TU, had deep coverage on that side, but ran with another UNH WR to the middle (and that guy ended up being double covered).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-I9DpbDwx8

I remember Hampton made an excellent diving pass breakup in the 3rd Qtr on an out pattern in JMU's territory..

Really doesn't matter, but The 2nd UNH TD in the 4th qtr (not shown on the highlights), play after Greene came out with what looked like a stinger, went right up the middle. Whoever was the ILB at the time in for Holloway, got knocked off. Have to wonder if Holloway wasn't ejected, they don't score that TD...

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  UNH 10
Dukes 56

Pretty close.

(11-12-2019 02:13 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  UNH 10
Dukes 56

Pretty close.

Thanks! I remembered making this prediction but coudln't remember which thread.

(11-12-2019 02:17 PM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 02:13 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(11-05-2019 09:43 AM)DirtyDukes Wrote:  UNH 10
Dukes 56

Pretty close.

Thanks! I remembered making this prediction but coudln't remember which thread.

Hope your RU prediction is this dead on! If so, I might LOL for a week.

(11-11-2019 03:15 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 07:05 AM)fishingduke12 Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 11:44 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  I don't think we're kicking it deep enough. It needs to land as close to the goal line as possible. A couple of those fell close to the 10.

It's been like that all year, he cant kick it into the endzone routinely

Hard to know if he can't or is being coached to take some off to try and land it in the corner and entice a return. One thing I've noticed is that teams aren't FC-ing anymore and getting it at the 25. I'm pretty sure UNH didn't, anyway. That makes me wonder if teams are seeing something in our coverage they can take advantage of, because right now that seems to be happening pretty frequently.

Idk, to me it seems like the smart play would be just to get it through the endzone every time and never risk a blown assignment that leads to a TD.

(11-06-2019 11:54 AM)ParentofJMUMRDs Wrote:  Wife and I were at the UNH game last year and it was a complete bomb of a game for the Dukes. DeNucci was bad and when Cole came in he was just as bad. Couple that with the rain and cold and it was a complete miserable day. One of those games I think where everything just went to hell in a hand basket. You have one of those from time to time. Looking forward to a bit of revenge in Saturdays game!!

Brian

Anyone know where the stomper was last Saturday? Did not see or hear him. He has definitely been at some games earlier this season.

Fans in the 203 section made up for his absence.