FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[hazzben]

Hazz, if you want to maintain a respectful dialogue, drop the emoticons- they ooze sarcasm.
I think our original disagreement started over your point that "it's more complex than that".  My objection to that statement revolves around the word complex.  When I think of complex in football terms, I think along the lines of creative formations, game plans, ways to use space, etc.  To me, it's Not complex to say a championship team needs to have a good offensive line, good running game and good passing game- that's actually Basic and not complex.  So if I say a decent to good passing game helps keep the safeties back, which in turn helps the running game, that's really not complex- it's basic.     

When I throw a wink in there, it means I'm joking. Sorry if your take that sort of thing personally. It's not at all meant to be, on the contrary, it's meant to bring some levity into the conversation. And I do enjoy the back and forth, and from my perspective, it has been respectful and spirited. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The issue isn't a disagreement on the meaning of complexity. It's a disagreement on the meaning of simple:

UWW gave the rest of D3 the blueprint.  The question is simple, is St. Thomas' line play at a championship level?   

My original response was that the blueprint is more complex than you made it out to be. I don't disagree that it is 'basic' football knowledge that excellence on the LOS is necessary to win. As well as an exceptional Defense. And I'm not arguing that's it's rocket science or earth shattering news that I'm stating these things.

I'm arguing you 'oversimplified' the 'blueprint' for beating Mount. You can try to twist my argument into something I'm not saying all you want. Bottom line, in my original reply I stated it was 'a little more complex than that.' That adjective serves as a qualifier. It's not that it takes a ridiculously complex, ground breaking formula. It's that the blueprint you provided, IMO, was incomplete. Neither of us disagree that line play is crucial. But your original post clearly implied that the blueprint came down to one thing, line play. And that if UST loses, it will reveal they had insufficient line play. How else can one interpret your original post? That is overly simplistic. You're the one that brought the topic of simplicity up. Excellent line play will be crucial, but the QB's, LB's, DB's, WR's and special teams probably have a part to play in this game as well. I agree emma, that's not complex. It's also not as 'simple' as you originally made it out to be.

This isn't personal. Sorry if you seem to be taking it that way and don't appreciate emoticons. I'm using them to help display emotion, since it is easy in written discourse to misconstrue a person's intentions. I greatly appreciate the fact that these boards are filled with reasonable posters who don't stoop to the level of immaturity found on an ESPN comments section. And I don't think my posts, while they differ in opinion from yours, lowered the level of discourse. 

[Pat Coleman]

Emma17 -- the rest of Division III knew the blueprint long before UWW came around. Rowan did it in 1999 and St. John's in 2003. There just aren't many teams who can do it. There's a difference between knowing the blueprint and being able to pull it off.

[emma17]

Some good discussion points- I'm sure glad the board hasn't died with the end of WIAC football.
Hazz- I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on anymore so I'll say this, IMO the only chance St T has of beating Mt is for their O Line to be great tomorrow night.

Warhawk Dad- I knew I ran the risk of ruffling feathers with the comment that the O-line almost lost the 2011 game- although we were strong at LG and LT.  I agree with your ranking order. One reason an OC may start calling QB runs is precisely because he lacks some confidence in the O-Line. Many examples of this can be found.

Pat- UWW's blueprint was written in ink.

[Pat Coleman]

Pat- UWW's blueprint was written in ink.

Cute phrase but doesn't mean anything. Again, it was well-known how to beat Mount Union.

[WarhawkDad]

Pat- UWW's blueprint was written in ink.

Cute phrase but doesn't mean anything. Again, it was well-known how to beat Mount Union.

OUCH!!!   Emma, you been slashed!   

[emma17]

Pat- UWW's blueprint was written in ink.

Cute phrase but doesn't mean anything. Again, it was well-known how to beat Mount Union.

Thanks.  What it means to me is that it's one thing for programs to know what they have to do, it's another thing to make it a mission.  It's a bit like the article on St. T and what coach Caruso does with his O-Line- it seems they truly are focused on building that specific part of the team. Of course I have no idea what all the other programs do behind the scenes, but we know how much emphasis a program like UWW has put into the line.  On top of it, I think UWW's success vs Mt is also a form of providing a blueprint. The success gives confidence to other programs that it can work.

[HScoach]

No offense to UWW, but it's the same blueprint LaCrosse used in the 1990's be beat Mount.  Got to win the line of scrimmage to counter act the Mount skill people.  A stalemate on the lines is typically a Mount win.

[emma17]

No offense to UWW, but it's the same blueprint LaCrosse used in the 1990's be beat Mount.  Got to win the line of scrimmage to counter act the Mount skill people.  A stalemate on the lines is typically a Mount win.

Ok Ok, so UWW didn't conceive the "blueprint".  I stand corrected.

I lack the proper word or phrase, but UWW did "something" that borrowed upon somebody else's originally developed blueprint of how to beat Mt and integrated it so deeply into the culture of the program that it produced success beyond reasonable expectations.

Can we live with that?   

[Just Bill]

I'm going to go with "acquired enough X's good enough to beat their O's"

[02 Warhawk]

I'm going to go with "acquired enough X's good enough to beat their O's"

I'm going with "Wisconsin can grow some damn big olineman"

[desertcat1]

I'm going to go with "acquired enough X's good enough to beat their O's"

I'm going with "Wisconsin can grow some damn big olineman"
[/quote  ]


Could be all that cheese.....

[02 Warhawk]

28-10

about what I expected. UMU just too much

[desertcat1]

  GOOD news is lowest point total for Mt.u but,  bad news not low enough..,  toms will be tough next year .

[skunks_sidekick]

TOMMIES are the new deal.  Loaded with young studs, and will be good for the next two or three years at least. 

Again...they played extremely tough.

[UMUplayerdad]

Emma17 is right about the Mount O-line.  It's solid, but I wouldn't classify it as great.  Two of the starters were D-linemen last year that were moved to O this fall because of lack of production.  It's not a weak O-line, but I sure wouldn't say it's a strength of the team. 

Strengths:
1.  WR corps
2.  Overall defensive team speed
3.  QB

Solid:
1.  O-line play

Weaknesses/decent/wish it was better:
1.  RB's
2.  Defense lacks size up front

I know our personalities clash a bit but most of the time we are on same page,  would you consider moving o-line from solid to a strength based on of couple things?

1 when a time consuming drive or two was needed as in a cpl OAC games, the semi-final and final they produced(I know the offense put the defense in bad spots at times during the year, but was there a bigger "save" than when UMHB drove -aagainst a tired mount D)  to go ahead 35-28 (and I admit 5 turnovers made the "save" needed) and then two back breaking drives ensued

2. two of those lineman made first team - and our center made second team d3 all america, and the two guys "borrowed" from the defense did  very well considering they weren't 3 year starters like the other 3 were. They did a nice job in unfamiliar situations. Now if you wanna talk depth? I glad not many injuries this year- 1 substitute with game experience

and I think we both know the troubles on short yardage -lack of a true bruiser "wes Ryder" fullback and no QB sneak from the spread

add in breaking the scoring record, can the o-line get some extra credit-also after an article about the tommie's huge(same size as ours) o-line wearing out teams in second half? didnt look that way last night- I saw 2 time consuming drive put the game late in the game from our o-line

also consider upgrade "size  of D line"   they were not huge and I have no idea how they did it, but I never saw them man-handled for more than one quarter a game all season-  deisul  being a hybrid linebacker/DL made up for some size upfront too