FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

wabco · July 26, 2007, 10:03:29 AM

Speaking of Franklin ... in my personal view 5 things got us last year: overconfidence, speed, away, no scouting info on Franklin ... with the Franklin coach - on the other hand - familiar with Wabash tendencies and personel from end of season substantive contact the year before, and [for some reason] Wabash seems to always struggle in the first game.

1) I am sure CC will not permit the overconfidence this time around.
2) As to speed ... Franklin still has it ... I believe Wabash should as well ... Franklin speed should not be the bit of a suprise as it appears to have been to players last year.
3) Away ... no problem this year as Hollett is the venue.
4) Familiarity ... should be about the same for each team this year ... except for breakthrough players unknown before their break out.
5) First game struggle ... darned if I can figure out why this seems to be under CC. The players this year are - essentially - veterans (often were as well in years past) but still seems slow to get it into gear. Needs to be overcome.

For Wabash: 1) Experienced and accomplished personnel in skill positions. 2) Issue with O line a little due to graduation except that replacements have substantive playing experience. Still - in my mind - a potential early season soft spot. 3) Running game should be better with bonified J-Back and RBs ... all with decent playing time last year (they are young ... except for Kimp). 4) D should be there ... all around ... last Franklin game the D line was simply beaten by speed. Do not see this happening this time. PLUS LB corps should be there. Secondary ... especially deep may have to grow quickly ... but then again hard to throw deep from your back or running for your life. 5) Hollett ... always a good "add". 6) SN (the first part of SNAFU) great coaches and mentors who are scholars of the game and motivators of smart kids.

For Franklin: 1) Speed back that they had last year plus nearly the same team. 2) Players at most skill positions are good and experienced from last year. 3) Good head coach and assistants who will prepare them well. 4) Underdog hype/motivation ... combined with "we can beat them ... we did it the last time". 4) Good recruiting class which should fill some holes and offer that element of suprise. 5) This is Franklin's second game.

WABASH wins if: 1) It performs well that which should be a strength: take what is given ... as the coaches decode this. 2) D must be there and have antidote for Franklin speed and not put O in a position of "answer". 3) Just keep on keepin on ... as the game move on ... if Wabash can put distance and keep the concentraton ... "Mr. Doubt" begins to sit on on the Franklin side. 4) Special teams ... do a good job and not provide openings for the Grizzlies. 5) Wabash crowd stays in the game (a given).

OK ... did this to get the game analysis discussion started ... I may be wrong in a number of respects and have missed things and others have better knowledge of Franklin. So .... Waaas up?

SaintsFAN · July 26, 2007, 10:28:21 AM

Good luck to Ryan Holmes, who has taken a position on the staff at Wittenburg.

Personally, I was sorry to see him go from work here, but he's going to be doing something we all should be jealous of....

wally_wabash · July 26, 2007, 10:56:58 AM

That's a good breakdown, wabco. I think the biggest difference from last year to this will be the defense. The '06 defense had four guys that had significant starting experience: Adi, Lange, Bell, and Jackson. There were a couple of other guys who got a spot start in '05 filling in for injured players or players Wabash was resting, but nothing significant. Based on what is returning as well as the return of Darryl Kennon, Wabash could have an experienced (meaning somebody who has significant starting experience) at every defensive position. I'd be shocked if Franklin can put up another 45 on this year's defense.

I think it's going to be a fun game to watch. A couple of skilled offenses shooting it out on a late summer afternoon. I think the gameday temperature could be a good number for the o/u for this game....if betting were legal, of course.

wally_wabash · July 30, 2007, 05:09:05 PM

The USA South conference is interweb streaming their media day...for fruh. I'm officially jealous.

Which raises a good point of discussion as we wait for Kickoff...I know that OWU streamed some games last year (I watched most of the Witt/OWU game via this stream....it was actually really good). Do we know of any other streaming video features from other teams around the league for 2007? What this conference needs is a good tech-envy race that sparks the proliferation of really awesome net streams of our games.

wabashcpa · July 30, 2007, 05:49:23 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on July 30, 2007, 05:09:05 PM
What this conference needs is a good tech-envy race that sparks the proliferation of really awesome net streams of our games.

Now THERE is a good reason for a non-conf. alliance with the UAA!

Or, should I say, another good reason...

Li'l Giant · July 30, 2007, 06:22:53 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on July 30, 2007, 05:09:05 PMWhat this conference needs is a good tech-envy race that sparks the proliferation of really awesome net streams of our games.

You're tellin' me. I'd settle for not having to download Real Player just to listen to our crew broadcasting from inside a giant tin can. But, at least I can listen to the games. I guess I shouldn't complain.

INQBScout · July 30, 2007, 09:34:25 PM

Looking at the DIII Preseason All America team, I find it amazing that a QB who has never started a game in college was selected and there's no sign of Dustin Huff from from Wabash?

Was he not the top-rated DIII QB last year?
I realize there are lots of factors, and limitations, that go into putting together a team like this...but I would have thought Huff would be a no-brainer. Just my opinion...

Pat Coleman · July 30, 2007, 09:56:56 PM

We'll call you back to compare Huff and Micheli at the end of the year.

This is a 2007 team, not a 2006 non-senior team.

INQBScout · July 30, 2007, 10:38:59 PM

QuoteThis is a 2007 team, not a 2006 non-senior team.

?? My point is I would assume that past performance, not potential, would be an important part of the selection process. I have no knowledge of the Micheli kid, but am sure he's going to be a great player.
All I'm saying is that it surprised me that a QB who led the nation in passing isn't selected and a kid who has yet to start a game is...

BashDad · July 30, 2007, 10:56:17 PM

Pat--

What a trite response. I'd be wary, being recognized as an authority on such things, to offer up such a confident reply. "We'll call you back"? Please. Gag me.

Huff is a ridiculous player. Ridiculous. To predict Micheli's value above his own-- considering the former hasn't yet been trusted with a full game-plan-- IS, despite whatever self-congratulatory hopefulness seems be oozing from your fingers, a bold choice. One that certainly shouldn't be ridiculed for questioning. It's not like Huff's some second rate dude...

Let's not act like you're preseason predictions are golden, they are-- per your own admission on the front page-- usually, and prolifically, wrong.

As a former post-season choice, I and Adam Knoblauch can attest. John Port was your selection ahead of us both that year.

wally_wabash · July 30, 2007, 11:34:06 PM

To be fair...Micheli was the MOP of the Stagg Bowl. It isn't like he doesn't have a little something on his resumé also. I don't think there's a team in D-III who wouldn't be thrilled to have either guy under center...except for maybe Springfield, but they don't have a need for a quarterback with arms.

Hopefully we'll be able to settle this debate on a wintry football field in December.

Superfoot Wallace · July 31, 2007, 12:02:16 AM

Quote from: wally_wabash on July 30, 2007, 11:34:06 PM
To be fair...Micheli was the MOP of the Stagg Bowl. It isn't like he doesn't have a little something on his resumé also. I don't think there's a team in D-III who wouldn't be thrilled to have either guy under center...except for maybe Springfield, but they don't have a need for a quarterback with arms.

Hopefully we'll be able to settle this debate on a wintry football field in December.

When bashbacker 16 first put the arms post up, tried to contain myself. Didn't take any pot shots at whether you guys have mirrors in your locker room or just look at each other. Nope, didn't do it. Go collate the ASC board from the very day(s) of Bashbacker 16's post and see what I so much wanted to cut and paste. Didn't want to hear the tired hater hater speech from your one sided student body. Since I didn't respond, will assume the smiley face wasn't for me. But really, discount the aforesaid, because it really is lame, just like the arms post.

Top rated quarterback? Huff?
Have to think the rookie starter last year for Franklin garners as much consideration as a passer. But quarterback?

Remember the days when Whizzer White ran the ball from the quarterback spot and Walter Camp defined the word quarterback in his T as the guy a quarter of the way back in the backfield.

What Mount, and Witt in my opinion are running is some facsimile of the A formation, recombinant to the winged t. Of the pistol fly option sort in Springfield and more the downhill A I predecessor in Alliance.

Top rated quarterbacks in these offenses do more than play point guard on grass, they run the ball. Shoot, in the double wing they are even the lead blocker on the direct sweep.

Used to go around saying how much i dislike quarterbacks, think I'll have to change that to how much I dislike passers.

signed,
Bobby Layne

wally_wabash · July 31, 2007, 12:38:56 AM

Was just noting that Springfield doesn't throw very often...or really at all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nice notes regarding "passer rating" as opposed to "quarterback rating". I would suppose that to some of the more sophisticated minds of the game the difference is significant.

With so many different offensive schemes floating about, the quarterback is different things to different people. Springfield has the guy that they want just as I'd assume Mount Union and Wabash have the guys they want.

And the QB from Franklin ended last year as the 6th rated passer...one spot ahead of Team USA member Rocky Pentello. Not too shabby. It should be a heck of a quarterback, excuse me, passer duel in C'ville on September 8.

INQBScout · July 31, 2007, 06:58:13 AM

QuoteHave to think the rookie starter last year for Franklin garners as much consideration as a passer.

You are right to bring up Franklin's Rupp...a very good player who should have a great year...

QuoteTop rated quarterbacks in these offenses do more than play point guard on grass, they run the ball. Shoot, in the double wing they are even the lead blocker on the direct sweep.

MacLeod, whether it's running or passing, it's all about moving the ball down the field and sticking it in the end zone.
Sincerely,
Joe Kapp

Li'l Giant · July 31, 2007, 09:18:40 AM

Quote from: MacLeod on July 31, 2007, 12:02:16 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on July 30, 2007, 11:34:06 PM
To be fair...Micheli was the MOP of the Stagg Bowl. It isn't like he doesn't have a little something on his resumé also. I don't think there's a team in D-III who wouldn't be thrilled to have either guy under center...except for maybe Springfield, but they don't have a need for a quarterback with arms.

Hopefully we'll be able to settle this debate on a wintry football field in December.

When bashbacker 16 first put the arms post up, tried to contain myself. Didn't take any pot shots at whether you guys have mirrors in your locker room or just look at each other. Nope, didn't do it. Go collate the ASC board from the very day(s) of Bashbacker 16's post and see what I so much wanted to cut and paste. Didn't want to hear the tired hater hater speech from your one sided student body. Since I didn't respond, will assume the smiley face wasn't for me. But really, discount the aforesaid, because it really is lame, just like the arms post.

Top rated quarterback? Huff?
Have to think the rookie starter last year for Franklin garners as much consideration as a passer. But quarterback?

Remember the days when Whizzer White ran the ball from the quarterback spot and Walter Camp defined the word quarterback in his T as the guy a quarter of the way back in the backfield.

What Mount, and Witt in my opinion are running is some facsimile of the A formation, recombinant to the winged t. Of the pistol fly option sort in Springfield and more the downhill A I predecessor in Alliance.

Top rated quarterbacks in these offenses do more than play point guard on grass, they run the ball. Shoot, in the double wing they are even the lead blocker on the direct sweep.

Used to go around saying how much i dislike quarterbacks, think I'll have to change that to how much I dislike passers.

signed,
Bobby Layne

Seriously, get ESPN Classic or something. I totally respect your knowledge of the game and your enthusiasm and contributions to this board. But you sound like one of those crotchety "get off my darn lawn!" types. The game has moved on. They are passing the ball now.