FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[BoBo]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

[02 Warhawk]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

The line starts behind me, boys. 

Wasn't it the Waldorf game where one of the LBs didn't make it onto the field? So with only 10 defenders a Waldorf slot receiver was able to take a short pass and take it 50 yards down to our 5 yard-line...or something like that. Which lead to their only score of the game.

[02 Warhawk]

Could be an ugly one tomorrow as the forecast in Whitewater is nasty. Tailgating might begin when the temp is still in the 30s, mixed with sleet. Kickoff should be in the mid 40s with rain.

Rain gear and an extra layer is needed.

[badgerwarhawk]

If there was nothing to worry about with the linebackers the coaching staff would have a fixed line up by this time and right now the only fixture is Dischler.  Count how many different linebackers will see the field Saturday.  Some of that is a decision to rotate players in and out but another part of it is because they're still trying to figure out who is who.  I'm not suggesting that they are the "little sisters of the poor" and I'm not really all that "nervous" about the situation because I think we've got some pretty decent athletes and they have been performing at an acceptable level.  Also I'm trying not to hold them to the standard set by last year's group which may have been the best set of linebackers, as a group, that we've ever had.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't reason to be concerned.

Like most I thought Franklin's 75 yard touchdown pass was a matter of a missed assignment and to a lesser degree it was.  But after talking with members of the coaching staff it seems the main problem was that it was a very well designed play by the Grizzlies which put players in motion and moved our defensive guys around so that no one was in position to defend on the play.  Also it was a play that we hadn't seen on tape because they hadn't run it before our game.  Give coach Leonard credit.  They got us on that one. 

Won't mind sitting in the press box for tomorrow's game.  Good luck to you diehards out in that miserable weather.  With alumni day, hall of fame day and family day we should have a great crowd.  Hopefully the weather doesn't ruin that. 

[MasterJedi]

Could be an ugly one tomorrow as the forecast in Whitewater is nasty. Tailgating might begin when the temp is still in the 30s, mixed with sleet. Kickoff should be in the mid 40s with rain.

Rain gear and an extra layer is needed.

Appears from weather.com that the rain should be ending about 1 so if that's the case, that's perfect because I'd prefer to not sit in the rain if at all possible lol

[BoBo]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

The line starts behind me, boys. 

Wasn't it the Waldorf game where one of the LBs didn't make it onto the field? So with only 10 defenders a Waldorf slot receiver was able to take a short pass and take it 50 yards down to our 5 yard-line...or something like that. Which lead to their only score of the game.

It was 56-0 at the 8:44 mark of the third when Waldorf scored. Was there any starters or even 2nd teamers in the game at that point? It isn't unheard of to have only 10 on the field, or 12 for that matter - happened to the Bears defense last Sunday (too many on field) against the Pack. Sh*t happens on the first game of the year. Bet it doesn't happen again this year. One mental lapse by a reserve during the 1st game of the year when the game was long over makes the entire LB corps a weak link?

[02 Warhawk]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

The line starts behind me, boys. 

Wasn't it the Waldorf game where one of the LBs didn't make it onto the field? So with only 10 defenders a Waldorf slot receiver was able to take a short pass and take it 50 yards down to our 5 yard-line...or something like that. Which lead to their only score of the game.

It was 56-0 at the 8:44 mark of the third when Waldorf scored. Was there any starters or even 2nd teamers in the game at that point? It isn't unheard of to have only 10 on the field, or 12 for that matter - happened to the Bears defense last Sunday (too many on field) against the Pack. Sh*t happens on the first game of the year. Bet it doesn't happen again this year. One mental lapse by a reserve during the 1st game of the year when the game was long over makes the entire LB corps a weak link?

Yea, it was a blow out by then, but I wasn't sure what personnel was playing at that point. I know their offense went out early, but their defense played a little longer. How much, I'm not sure. 

I believed I used the term "inexperienced"

[NewHawk]

Could be an ugly one tomorrow as the forecast in Whitewater is nasty. Tailgating might begin when the temp is still in the 30s, mixed with sleet. Kickoff should be in the mid 40s with rain.

Rain gear and an extra layer is needed.

Appears from weather.com that the rain should be ending about 1 so if that's the case, that's perfect because I'd prefer to not sit in the rain if at all possible lol

Sounds like normal October weather in Wisconsin. Hoping the rain does stop before kick off. Geuss  I will have to leave beer at home and bring some antifreeze instead.

[bleedpurple]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

He Bobo, thanks for reading!  First, good point about the Dubuque rushing total. I looked at the "yards gained" instead of the "net" after the losses. It's been corrected. As far as the rest of your comments:

2. I know you used my second "Thing to Watch" to springboard into a communication to Warhawk fans at large about the "young linebacker issue".  But since you mention it in addressing my second "Thing to Watch" I just want to clarify that I didn't refer to UW-W's linebackers as either "young" or "inexperienced". Although they are both, that wasn't the "point of that point". I believe it to be true that La Crosse will try to attack our linebackers.  What you do against our defense, try to run the ball up the middle? Good luck keeping up with the track meet that is our offense that way. Attack our cornerbacks? Right.  Go deep? Depends on if you want your sore ribbed QB to survive. UW-L will test our linebackers. I was actually being literal in this point. It was really fun "to watch" Franklin's game plan as they attacked the linebacker zones with great creativity.  One fun thing to watch will be to see what UW-L tries to do.

3. I have no problem with your thought that UW-L doesn't appear have much to offer.  You probably do have my head nodding with that. However, as I try to look at each upcoming game, I would like to write things more interesting than I was able to come up with in point #5.  And "We are really better than them and they suck" gets a little old too.  Do I expect UW-L to run on UW-W? Nope.  Do I think it bears watching? Yes.  Hertrampf is a good running back and their top running backs have done OK against better competition than we have faced.  I guess I could have focused on the other side of the ball and talk about what the UW-W running game will do to the UW-L defense.  But I expect everyone in the stadium will see that and you won't have to be "watching for it".  The reason I listed it is that if UW-W shuts down the UW-L running game (which I expect they will), I believe it will be taking another step as a defense compared to the non-WIAC teams we have faced.  Not a big step, necessarily, but a step nonetheless. 

[bleedpurple]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

The line starts behind me, boys. 

Wasn't it the Waldorf game where one of the LBs didn't make it onto the field? So with only 10 defenders a Waldorf slot receiver was able to take a short pass and take it 50 yards down to our 5 yard-line...or something like that. Which lead to their only score of the game.

On the Waldorf big play thing, either someone got hoodwinked or took someone too literally.  UW-W had 11 guys out there, including 3 linebackers.  Waldorf had the ball on their own 46. They aligned a receiver wide left, outside the numbers.  He just ran a streak. Stayed outside the numbers the whole time. The cornerback squatted and reacted to the slot guy who came out into the flat. The safety appeared to be looking into the backfield and took a step inside and was way late covering the streaking WR. I have no idea if he was even supposed to because I don't know the coverage UW-W was in.  The receiver caught the ball on the 25 (29 yards downfield) and was tackled at the 2.  Nothing to do with the linebackers. 

[bleedpurple]

"Depth Perception". A look at UW-W's depth heading into WIAC play.

www.warhawkfootball.com

Also, be sure to check out "LaCrosse Week Central" in the middle of the page. Lots of content and lots of links to pertinent info!

[WarhawkDad]

Could be an ugly one tomorrow as the forecast in Whitewater is nasty. Tailgating might begin when the temp is still in the 30s, mixed with sleet. Kickoff should be in the mid 40s with rain.

Rain gear and an extra layer is needed.

Appears from weather.com that the rain should be ending about 1 so if that's the case, that's perfect because I'd prefer to not sit in the rain if at all possible lol

Sounds like normal October weather in Wisconsin. Hoping the rain does stop before kick off. Geuss  I will have to leave beer at home and bring some antifreeze instead.

Antifreeze of choice:   Fireball or Tequilla 

[02 Warhawk]

^^ A couple things I take away from your 5 things:

1.  Coming off the off weekend, I suspect the offense to come out like gang-busters and lay the pedal to the metal early and often, in order to destroy any hope La Crosse might have and suck the air out of them in quick order.

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

3.  bleed, I think you're being a little misleading with the quality of the La Crosse running game.  As a team they had 97 total rushing yards with a 2.7 per rush average vs UMHB, and 72 yards with a 2.2 average vs UST and NO TD's.  They actually had 209 yards rushing vs UD, not 235, but that only came with 1 rushing TD, too. UD appears to be quite porous early in this season in rushing defense giving up over 200 to Platteville and 131 to Pacific last week, too. La Crosse's running game, on paper, shouldn't be a major concern, IMO.  I'm sure, bleed, you have to write about something, so your choice of running game leads me to believe that La Crosse doesn't really have much to offer.  I'm sure you don't want to say that outwardly, but just nod if I'm headed down the right road.

The line starts behind me, boys. 

Wasn't it the Waldorf game where one of the LBs didn't make it onto the field? So with only 10 defenders a Waldorf slot receiver was able to take a short pass and take it 50 yards down to our 5 yard-line...or something like that. Which lead to their only score of the game.

On the Waldorf big play thing, either someone got hoodwinked or took someone too literally.  UW-W had 11 guys out there, including 3 linebackers.  Waldorf had the ball on their own 46. They aligned a receiver wide left, outside the numbers.  He just ran a streak. Stayed outside the numbers the whole time. The cornerback squatted and reacted to the slot guy who came out into the flat. The safety appeared to be looking into the backfield and took a step inside and was way late covering the streaking WR. I have no idea if he was even supposed to because I don't know the coverage UW-W was in.  The receiver caught the ball on the 25 (29 yards downfield) and was tackled at the 2.  Nothing to do with the linebackers.

Maybe I'm thinking of another play then. I could have sworn we were short on one play this year that cost us some huge yards (maybe even a TD).

[emma17]

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

I like this subject. 
The line backing crew is brand spanking new.  Not just new to us fans (as in, who the heck is that guy?), but new to them as players on the field (as in, what the heck do I do against this formation?). 
We've all heard it before- speed is great- as long as you're running the right direction.  Athleticism is great, as long as you know your assignments.
This isn't just a matter of comparing this year's crew to last year's, we rightfully need to appreciate the level of LB play that has existed at UWW for several years straight.  Before Klotz, Cortez, Wismer and Williams there was Arnold, Olson and Ford- and before that Supianoski, Olson, Ford and Arnold and before that Rindahl and Raebel. 

In no way am I suggesting the new crew won't have similar success someday.  But to think this new crew, simply because they might be fast or athletic, will perform near the level of these past crews any time soon might be a bit overly optimistic. 

Because it's reasonable to assume the LB's are some number of levels less confident in their assignments than the past crews have been, they likely aren't as fast to react to plays. 

Although my memory doesn't allow me to provide specific plays that I've seen this season, I do know I've paid close attention to the LB's when I've been able to see them either live or livestream.  As a group, they aren't covering the field and making the plays that we are used to seeing from a UWW defense. 

Absolutely an offense should look to exploit this new group in every way it can.  They should look to run tight end quick passes, seems, hooks, cross routes, slants, flares, reverses, counters and any other play that forces a LB to think, even for a split second. And they should run these plays out of multiple formations and motions. 

[WarhawkDad]

2.  Testing the linebackers?  This one is really beginning to driving me nuts. There are so many Nervous Nellies out there in Warhawk fan-land, led by 02 Warhawk over the youth/inexperience at the linebacker position. You guys act like we're the Little Sisters of the Poor at LB. I think the only play they've look young and inexperienced is the one at Franklin when someone missed an assignment that led directly to their second TD. Otherwise, name a sequence when they messed up to such a degree that it made you guys question them so much? In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X Warhawk nation. The fact is, the LBs are really good, and getting better and are going to be around a while.

Absolutely an offense should look to exploit this new group in every way it can.  They should look to run tight end quick passes, seems, hooks, cross routes, slants, flares, reverses, counters and any other play that forces a LB to think, even for a split second. And they should run these plays out of multiple formations and motions.

Emma

Whose side are you on?    I agree that offenses will look to exploit our linebacking group.   My rationale is that when you look at the balance of the defense, that is the only potential weakness and I do not think it is that weak.     The balance of the defense is just that good and frankly will help support the middle.   Good line play will help the linebackers and so will good safety play.     I am really looking forward to being at the Perk tomorrow, even with the weather!

WHD