The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-03-2020 08:25 PM)ZCat Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 03:43 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 03:41 PM)dbernie41 Wrote:  Bryant really missed out being out this game.

Wouldn’t matter. Ridder must have compromising pics of the staff.

It’s like Damon Flint All over again. The guy could do no wrong. He could jack up any three he wanted. Regardless of shooting percentage.

I was thinking more Keith LeGree at PG who could barely hit a FT.

(10-04-2020 09:28 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-04-2020 07:52 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 08:06 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 07:46 PM)jarr Wrote:  Fick seemed much more open to being "out of the box" earlier in his career here, but is starting to remind me of the rigid Cronin/Marvin Lewis/Tressel/Dantonio type coaches that seem to get tunnel vision in doing things a certain way as it is successful against most their schedule but bever enough to win the games that count.

Sticking with Ridder at this point isn't even "playing it safe", but "playing it stupid"

Unless you don’t have another QB available. I also believe the offensive doesn’t even help take into account things Ridder does well and forces him to play his weaknesses.

I almost as upset with the QB play as I am the play calling and gameplan.

I am curious as to what about the playcalling upsets you. I thought the past two weeks have been some of Denbrock's better games as a play-caller. The issue has been poor execution by the QB and other times bad decision making. The plays are there, there just has been a huge lack of execution at one position.

Missing wide open WRs (lather rinse repeat) is not due to play calling.

They were wide open for a reason? I.e no concern that Ridder could hit them?

UC's defense has swagger--a joy to watch those guys flying around out there and they may be among the very best in college football this season.

UC's offense is shaky. Whatever shortcomings Ridder may have, he's playing below his demonstrated ability right now and the coach labels it as a confidence issue. I tend to agree. They have 13 days to get that fixed as Tulsa will be a formidable opponent at their place.

And speaking of 13 days. The one graphic on ESPN+ during the game listed maybe a half dozen UC players who weren't playing Saturday. That's worrisome if those are all Covid related. That group, presuming they are alright will meet a 14 day quarantine to return at Tulsa. But one has to believe there will be other positive tests among the remaining team members that, as of yesterday, would not allow a sufficient quarantine period to return to action at Tulsa.

It's a strange season indeed. I'm hoping UC can keep sufficient numbers of players testing negative in order to play our the conference schedule.

I have not heard that any players tested positive. I heard it was all contact tracing related. Should be no need for a 14 day quarantine either. Get a negative test after a few days and you should be good to go.

(10-05-2020 09:15 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  I have not heard that any players tested positive. I heard it was all contact tracing related. Should be no need for a 14 day quarantine either. Get a negative test after a few days and you should be good to go.

Thanks for the insight on that. I really hope we don't face game cancellations this season, especially with all the Bearcats' loftiest goals still within reach.

It has to be very strange to be playing in a mostly empty Nippert Stadium. There is a lack of excitement just watching college and especially NFL games on tv and seeing all of the empty seats. I wonder what the fan policy is at UC's next opponent - Tulsa?

SMU has fans at their games now.

It would be nice if UC could open things up a bit.

(10-05-2020 09:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  It has to be very strange to be playing in a mostly empty Nippert Stadium. There is a lack of excitement just watching college and especially NFL games on tv and seeing all of the empty seats. I wonder what the fan policy is at UC's next opponent - Tulsa?

SMU has fans at their games now.

It would be nice if UC could open things up a bit.

I'll be extremely disappointed if they don't let 3-5k students scattered throughout the lower bowl (away side to student section) for next game. Band and cheer leaders can have their own sections still. The families of the players/coaches can still use the home side. Rope of the concourse if they are worried about contact between students and families.

IMO, I think they could let another 1-3k of season ticket holders in the upper bowl/club. Again, if necessary perfectly able to rope off the concourses for access to these areas so the different categories of people in attendance aren't mixing with each other.

I know the SEC is basically just saying F it, but we are located in Ohio lol so I think the above is reasonable. I might be over DeWine's max capacity rule. If so, students IMO deserve to have the opportunity before season ticket holders.

(10-03-2020 05:47 PM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 05:42 PM)SeniorBearcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 05:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  D. Ridder
15-24, 133 YDS, 2 TD, 3 INT

Against the worst team in the league this is good enough, right?

He is averaging 7 ypc and defenses do have to respect that (my only optimist take). I’m not all aboard the Ridder train like I was last season, this was a game to post excellent numbers and Ridder has stunk. It is tough to move on from a QB that keeps posting wins...say you move on next game and Bryant loses on the road at Tulsa. The locker room can become divided because is it better to win ugly or lose with better QB stats.

He's not winning, great defense and a good rushing attack have been winning in spite of his piss poor play.

In a 0-0 game with multiple turnovers and we were inside the 10...Doaks gets a couple of yards on 1st down and then Ridder in the shadow of our endzone rips off the 20+ yard run to lead us on our 1st touchdown drive, threw for 2 more TD passes. Defense gave up 1 TD and we scored 1 TD on special teams, but he did lead us on scoring drives of 21 points...wasn't that the line for the game.

Again, I'm not all aboard the Ridder train and I wish Bryant would have been available because Ridder should have taken a seat after one of those early turnovers. I do fully expect Ridder to be the starting QB in two weeks and I hope the staff calls plays more to his skillset.

I would rather see Ridder go out there and be 15/30 for 150 yards with 1 TD / 1 INT plus 40-60 rushing yards and bring home an Ugly victory....than Bryant completing 21/30 for 285 yards and 3 TD / 1 INT but the quick scores cause our defense to become gassed on the road and we lose by a FG...would fans settle for a Loss like that we MAY have avoided to potentially get better QB play?

Dak Prescott is 137 / 201 68% completion 1700+ with 9 TDs / 3 INTs on a 1-3 team. I am all aboard the Fickell train and I hope the staff goes back to plays like the extension of the run game throw outside we used the last couple of years to Deguara. Defenses need to respect Ridder's running ability and Doaks / TEs are fully capable of running that play and moving the chains.

(10-05-2020 10:43 AM)SeniorBearcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 05:47 PM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 05:42 PM)SeniorBearcat Wrote:  

(10-03-2020 05:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  D. Ridder
15-24, 133 YDS, 2 TD, 3 INT

Against the worst team in the league this is good enough, right?

He is averaging 7 ypc and defenses do have to respect that (my only optimist take). I’m not all aboard the Ridder train like I was last season, this was a game to post excellent numbers and Ridder has stunk. It is tough to move on from a QB that keeps posting wins...say you move on next game and Bryant loses on the road at Tulsa. The locker room can become divided because is it better to win ugly or lose with better QB stats.

He's not winning, great defense and a good rushing attack have been winning in spite of his piss poor play.

In a 0-0 game with multiple turnovers and we were inside the 10...Doaks gets a couple of yards on 1st down and then Ridder in the shadow of our endzone rips off the 20+ yard run to lead us on our 1st touchdown drive, threw for 2 more TD passes. Defense gave up 1 TD and we scored 1 TD on special teams, but he did lead us on scoring drives of 21 points...wasn't that the line for the game.

Again, I'm not all aboard the Ridder train and I wish Bryant would have been available because Ridder should have taken a seat after one of those early turnovers. I do fully expect Ridder to be the starting QB in two weeks and I hope the staff calls plays more to his skillset.

I would rather see Ridder go out there and be 15/30 for 150 yards with 1 TD / 1 INT plus 40-60 rushing yards and bring home an Ugly victory....than Bryant completing 21/30 for 285 yards and 3 TD / 1 INT but the quick scores cause our defense to become gassed on the road and we lose by a FG...would fans settle for a Loss like that we MAY have avoided to potentially get better QB play?

Dak Prescott is 137 / 201 68% completion 1700+ with 9 TDs / 3 INTs on a 1-3 team. I am all aboard the Fickell train and I hope the staff goes back to plays like the extension of the run game throw outside we used the last couple of years to Deguara. Defenses need to respect Ridder's running ability and Doaks / TEs are fully capable of running that play and moving the chains.

Those are two INCREDIBLY different scenarios. The Cowboys defense is historically bad...

Also, I would be fine if Ridder only lost the ball once and rushed for 60 yards on top of 180-200 yard passing days...but that's not happening. The dude is regressing in every metric. He was a good QB as a freshman because he did three things, he didn't take chances, he only took what the defense gave him (lots of balls underneath), and he added an extra dynamic in the running game. Now he is costing us possessions and refusing to run (lowest YPC and YPG in his career through 3 games). Defenses have no figured out he doesn't provide a threat through the air...the difference this year is that we NEED him to be able to make plays downfield when they are wide open and he can't get it done...if he was making those plays, no one would be upset, but now defenses are throwing 7 and 8 man boxes at us because they know they can just have a hip-to-hip defense on the outside and not worry about getting burned anymore. Hell, Army was playing a Cloud Rush (4 men in zone in between 5-15 yards) and just daring Ridder to actually do something...and they had a marked athletic disadvantage. What are other teams who are close to us athletically going to do now.

(10-05-2020 10:43 AM)SeniorBearcat Wrote:  I would rather see Ridder go out there and be 15/30 for 150 yards with 1 TD / 1 INT plus 40-60 rushing yards and bring home an Ugly victory....than Bryant completing 21/30 for 285 yards and 3 TD / 1 INT but the quick scores cause our defense to become gassed on the road and we lose by a FG...would fans settle for a Loss like that we MAY have avoided to potentially get better QB play?

With all due respect i think you are making the case for us. The thing is, if he was winning the way you articulated above, we would still be calling for the hook. The fact is that he's playing worse then that, even as Cincy continues to win, and therein lies the problem.

i also think the Bryant scenario is a red herring. Of course any sane Bearcat fan would take a W over an L. That's a ridiculous hypothetical pose but the fact that you posed it just shows how far one has to go to force the choice, even if it's a false one.

i want Bryant to be judged on his merits. if he fails that test, at least he got that chance. What is irking me is that he's not getting that chance.

Let me also say that Dan Hoard's comments about Bryant were very disappointing. To know that he had an opportunity over the summer and Ridder beat him out takes his stock down a little. And if i am being honest, i think the Coaching staff should move on from him this offseason if he continues to fall short of Ridder in practice. i can't unsee the past however many saturdays i've seen of Ridder and if he can't beat that out then he should play at a level of competition more suited for him.

I’d take bucket loads of quick scores over whatever the heck this is. Ridder is what, approaching 30 starts into his career and is having confidence issues? Huh?

I get the impression this D would like nothing more than to get right back out there to pin their ears back and ball hawk.

Ground and pound is fine if you want to shorten the game and hide your D on the sideline.

BTW: Dan Hoard is never going to fuel a QB controversy. I don’t know what else he could say other than what he did.

i get that. Dan is a smart guy but if Bryant was better i think he would have used language to frame it as such, whether it was heavy use of caveats or other notes that would have led to Ridder being selected as QB1 in the end. He's good enough to know how to massage language to communicate that point. Moreover, if Bryant was better i don't think he would lie about it. He probably would have dodged my question since it was posed on Twitter. After all, no one is owed an explanation. But he was pretty clear that Ridder was the better player. Still can't believe it but...

(10-05-2020 12:56 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I’d take bucket loads of quick scores over whatever the heck this is. Ridder is what, approaching 30 starts into his career and is having confidence issues? Huh?

I get the impression this D would like nothing more than to get right back out there to pin their ears back and ball hawk.

Ground and pound is fine if you want to shorten the game and hide your D on the sideline.

BTW: Dan Hoard is never going to fuel a QB controversy. I don’t know what else he could say other than what he did.

Scoring too fast isn't a thing when running your normal offense. Score when you can.

From Mark’s keyboard to God’s ears.

Couldn’t agree more.

I don't think it's due to Bryant not being good enough. As far as I know, Fick didn't go hard after a transfer QB. That tells me he like both Ridder and Bryant. Fick is comfortable with Ridder, and he is going to ride that horse to wherever it takes him.

28 points against that opponent on your home field in week 3 with a third year signal caller is quite concerning.

(10-05-2020 02:33 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  28 points against that opponent on your home field in week 3 with a third year signal caller is quite concerning.

It’s not just that they only scored 28 points IMO. It’s that we also has 4 Turnovers, including 3 INT’s. Some of those INT’s were pretty horrendous. When you add missed opportunities on top of all of it, I think it understandable why fans are concerned.

Edit: Just to expand on this a bit more, when your offense is struggling and your defense has been playing lights out, the last thing you want to do is give the opponents free points or short fields consistently. Eventually the defense won’t be able to hold a good team and the offense hasn’t shown the ability to win in a shootout.

(10-05-2020 02:27 PM)Z-Fly Wrote:  I don't think it's due to Bryant not being good enough. As far as I know, Fick didn't go hard after a transfer QB. That tells me he like both Ridder and Bryant. Fick is comfortable with Ridder, and he is going to ride that horse to wherever it takes him.

i will only speak for myself, but i want to give Bryant a shot. The coaching staff is obviously going to go with Ridder. What effect do you think bringing in a third QB candidate to compete for a starting job right away would have had on the current QB group? You probably would lose Ridder altogether, confidence-wise, and maybe force a transfer for Bryant. i'm all good with that if the transfer is worth it but that's definitely not Coack Fickell's style from what i can tell.

(10-05-2020 02:48 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 02:33 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  28 points against that opponent on your home field in week 3 with a third year signal caller is quite concerning.

It’s not just that they only scored 28 points IMO. It’s that we also has 4 Turnovers, including 3 INT’s. Some of those INT’s were pretty horrendous. When you add missed opportunities on top of all of it, I think it understandable why fans are concerned.

Edit: Just to expand on this a bit more, when your offense is struggling and your defense has been playing lights out, the last thing you want to do is give the opponents free points or short fields consistently. Eventually the defense won’t be able to hold a good team and the offense hasn’t shown the ability to win in a shootout.

3 home games against a bad FCS team, Army and a team that may go winless in the AAC and he’s thrown for a total of 6 TDs and 4 interceptions...should be 5 INTs but that picked off pitch for a TD by Army goes down as him fumbling.

I’m completely boggled by CLF’s comments about his confidence being down. 4th year in this offense with the same OC, 3rd year as the starter with 26 starts out of 27 games played and he’s losing confidence when we are on the verge of being ranked in the Top 10???

Just go back to the limited playbook from his freshman year and call designed run plays one out of 4 plays. Let him have fun again and move the chains. He’s not a drop back pocket passer, doesn’t have great touch and another 2 years after this as starter isn’t going to turn him into Joe Burrow.

(10-05-2020 02:48 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(10-05-2020 02:33 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  28 points against that opponent on your home field in week 3 with a third year signal caller is quite concerning.

It’s not just that they only scored 28 points IMO. It’s that we also has 4 Turnovers, including 3 INT’s. Some of those INT’s were pretty horrendous. When you add missed opportunities on top of all of it, I think it understandable why fans are concerned.

Edit: Just to expand on this a bit more, when your offense is struggling and your defense has been playing lights out, the last thing you want to do is give the opponents free points or short fields consistently. Eventually the defense won’t be able to hold a good team and the offense hasn’t shown the ability to win in a shootout.

Also, to help make the point...it wasn't 28 points, it was only 21 by the offense. It also needs to be said, on every possession that started with a turnover forced by our defense, we gave the ball right back by way of a turnover ourselves. The exact opposite of an opportunistic offense.