FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

ummalum · September 17, 2007, 08:41:04 PM

Does anyone think UWW would have won the game if playcalling was better.

voice · September 17, 2007, 09:43:56 PM

What was wrong with the play calling. I thought it was very good. They outgained the Huskies didn't they?

BoBo · September 17, 2007, 10:54:12 PM

Quote from: ummalum on September 17, 2007, 08:41:04 PM
Does anyone think UWW would have won the game if playcalling was better.

Quote from: voice on September 17, 2007, 09:43:56 PM
What was wrong with the play calling. I thought it was very good. They outgained the Huskies didn't they?

Sorry ummalum, I totally agree with voice on this one. I think most everyone knows what the problems were that contributed to the defeat - they start with pass protection breakdowns, catching and holding onto the ball, and mental mistakes/turnovers. I don't think those issues are primarily associated to the playcalling. Specifically, what are your issues with the playcalling that you feel could have been done better and possibly changed defeat into victory for WW?

chmarx · September 17, 2007, 11:59:13 PM

Is this more sour grapes about the coaching change?

BoBo · September 18, 2007, 12:13:38 AM

Let's not go down that road again!!

raiderguy · September 18, 2007, 01:19:56 AM

Voice,
It was great to meet you Saturday night. Hope to see you again in the future.

I am not sure what game Ozzie 679 saw but WW had Gremlins in their huddle all night. I have to say it was WW turnovers that "gave" SCSU points and without that and receiver #8 who will forever be known as "STONEY", the game would have been much closer and a possible WW win. You can never factor the If's and But's.....but let's face it SCSU was not exactly slamming the door on WW. Calling off the dogs? Didn't really see that.

WW had their own problems like 1st and goal at the 1 only to have a FG blocked at the 5......Good defense for SCSU give them credit. WW did you ever think of using Beaver as a decoy. That would be the only play call issue I had.
Having a punt bounce into the WW player at the SCSU 45 etc, etc. I would not be too happy at your teams showing against a DIII team. You got by.
I would say Jones was a bit of a disappointment too. He was pressured a lot but he threw passes long just for the sake of throwing long. Who was going to catch them? JMHO.

huskyfan · September 18, 2007, 02:16:29 AM

Quote from: raiderguy on September 18, 2007, 01:19:56 AM
Voice,
It was great to meet you Saturday night. Hope to see you again in the future.

I am not sure what game Ozzie 679 saw but WW had Gremlins in their huddle all night. I have to say it was WW turnovers that "gave" SCSU points and without that and receiver #8 who will forever be known as "STONEY", the game would have been much closer and a possible WW win. You can never factor the If's and But's.....but let's face it SCSU was not exactly slamming the door on WW. Calling off the dogs? Didn't really see that.

WW had their own problems like 1st and goal at the 1 only to have a FG blocked at the 5......Good defense for SCSU give them credit. WW did you ever think of using Beaver as a decoy. That would be the only play call issue I had.
Having a punt bounce into the WW player at the SCSU 45 etc, etc. I would not be too happy at your teams showing against a DIII team. You got by.
I would say Jones was a bit of a disappointment too. He was pressured a lot but he threw passes long just for the sake of throwing long. Who was going to catch them? JMHO.

Wow. Excuses excuses. I'm not sure how WW "gave" SCSU turnovers. The INT on the opening drive was a great catch by the LB. And 2 of the 3 fumbles were caused by gang tackling and big hits on the ball carrier. I love when people blame a loss on turnovers like they were some kind of mental mistake and fail to recognize that there is a defense out there working its ass off to force those turnovers.

As for calling off the dogs, I wouldn't exactly call it that, but SCSU definitely did relax into a prevent defense. They were up by more than 3 TDs going into the 4th quarter. WW had 3 first downs and a grand total of 63 yards in the first half.

I also love how some of you try to downplay SCSU's win by bashing your own team. Way to support your guys. Good grief.

janesvilleflash · September 18, 2007, 05:40:07 AM

Afraid I pretty much have to agree with Husky fan. Congrats to SCSU on a good win.

footballfan413 · September 18, 2007, 10:03:42 AM

I also agree with Huskyfan. Turnovers are more often than not a result of a hard working defense. The Hawks made mistakes, had some breaks not got their way, and have a lot to work on this week on both sides of the ball, but there is no reason for panic by the fans, coaches and certainly not the players. We have a new offense led by a QB who is brand new to the program. The O needs time to get comfortable and gel. Let's not forget that the Hawks have had 2 away games and a bye week. They will now have a much needed home game to start off conference play. The team needs to stay positive and put last weeks game behind them and fans need to, "PACK THE PERK!" Congrats to SCSU on a well played game.

warhawkclownshow · September 18, 2007, 10:41:07 AM

The things that the hawks did bad, controlling the ball, are things that are attributed to coaching and youth. It was disappointing watching the Hawks lose the way they did, the D played more than good enough for the W, but on the plus side the game doesn't really count for anything. One positive to take away from the games is the things the hawks did poorly are easily correctable. Also fumbles are always more the fault of the offensive player than the defense. Fumbles are unacceptable in any and all circumstances with no exceptions, bottom line is if you hold onto the ball correctly you will not fumble. As for the coaching I thought the play calling was good but other things such as pass protection breakdowns, catching and holding onto the ball, and mental mistakes/turnovers are definitely related to coaching and there they obviously failed. Unlike the past two years where WW was dominate from the start it may take a few weeks for the entire O to get moving. They do have the luxury of having the second best player in the country, Beav, (Pierre Garcon is easily the best) to run the ball so they can afford to be patient with the rest of the O. Hopeful for the conference season but this team is still a bit of a mystery to me. Also Hawks wont see a d as good as SCSU's in conference play.

J44 · September 18, 2007, 11:36:40 AM

To say Beaver is the second best player in the nation is hilarious!! Brady Pitz must be the third best then!!! With holes like that to run through, any "solid" back could rack up big time yardage!!

Pat Coleman · September 18, 2007, 11:41:53 AM

I can tell you weren't at Mary Hardin-Baylor last year.

Sakman 1111 · September 18, 2007, 11:56:35 AM

J44 you have got to be kidding or evidently you have not seen many UWW games over the last 3 years. I don't know if he is the second best player but I am certain he has been one of the top 5 for quite a while now....I do agree that Garcon is the best I have seen....

ozzie679 · September 18, 2007, 12:08:10 PM

Quote from: raiderguy on September 18, 2007, 01:19:56 AM
I have to say it was WW turnovers that "gave" SCSU points and without that and receiver #8 who will forever be known as "STONEY", the game would have been much closer and a possible WW win. You can never factor the If's and But's.....but let's face it SCSU was not exactly slamming the door on WW. Calling off the dogs? Didn't really see that.

Ok, calling off the dogs is a little overblown. I will admit that was a poor choice of words. But WW did give up the ball, but didn't give SCSU the points. Did they fumble in the end zone? Did SCSU recover the ball for a TD?

QuoteI would not be too happy at your teams showing against a DIII team. You got by. I would say Jones was a bit of a disappointment too. He was pressured a lot but he threw passes long just for the sake of throwing long. Who was going to catch them? JMHO.

WW may be a DIII team, but why are you belittling them to devalue the SCSU win. WW is not the average DIII. They are an elite DIII and SCSU is an average DII. I was actually shocked at the toughness of the WW defensive front and linebackers.

warhawkclownshow · September 18, 2007, 12:23:44 PM

J44- Beaver is the best RB I have seen at D3 level, Kamic is a very close second. You obviously haven't seen Beaver play too much and I have so your opinion doesn't carry too much weight. If he wasn't injured his freshman year we would possibly be talking about him being the all time leading rusher in the history of college football. But I'm sure any drunk in the stands could do that in WW's offense.

ozzie679- Backers are very good at ww, seemed like SCSU was avoiding AJ (good move) anyone else notice?