FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[emma17]

K & J's Dad,

Have not seen your returning players breakdown for the Raiders that you normally do right after each season. Did I miss it, or
are you like many of us, not yet wanting to discuss 2014?

68 or other posters,
I was looking through some of the D3 photos of the Stagg and was reminded of how the Mt players took the field from the tunnel- walking. Is this Mt's usual approach to taking the field?
I'm not suggesting it's the reason they lost (although I admit to hearing the words of my old coaches echoing in my head "Never walk onto the practice or game field"), it's just so unusual to see a team do that.
I don't recall that approach from previous Stagg Bowls.

emma17,

I have not seen the Raider team do anything but run onto the field of play. I have seen the team walk on concrete or surfaces
where it would be dangerous to run. Also, I do read their performance in this last Stagg Bowl as having any bearing on them
walking. UWW played the best I have ever seen them and everything went their way. They won and deserved the game, but
it is still one game and the Raiders had a great season, when many thought they would struggle this year.

Hope you have a Happy New Year!

I heard an interesting opinion recently. The opinion was that Mt made a big mistake in pulling Mitchell after the fumble. Even though he was struggling to get yardage, his big play threat was a concern to UWW. With him out, UWW had less to worry about and played that way.

Btw (and this isn't directed to 68 specifically), it seems many Mt fans are reading from the same Talking Points memo that "Mt wasn't supposed to get this far and overachieved, etc".  That may be comforting after a bad loss but I can't imagine many outside the OAC are buying this theory totally.  Mt has had to restock many a time. Mt was picked to win its conference and was ranked #1 all season long. Mt had the QB that "would not lose" as expressed on this board many times and it was mentioned on this board that the offense had come together and had the weapons from late season through the playoffs. Heck I think I even recall reading early in the year how Larry wouldn't leave the cupboard empty for his son.

I think it's a bit of a cop-out for fans to cling to the "we weren't supposed to be good anyway"line of thinking.
Something was different about this Mt team and I can't imagine it was all due to some big drop off in talent.

emma17,

In response to your comment about Mount expectations. The general consensus among most Mount
fans was that this year's team was supposed have a "very good defense". However
the Raiders defense was not up to year after year standard of being in the top 3-4 in D3 and giving up less than 7 points per game. The concern was how quickly would the young O line come together. So after 15 games, it was the Offense that was very good and the defense was not at a Mount level. For me, several factors affected this year's results.  My concern is the need for changes to approach for recruiting ( See my earlier post on 2014 and beyond and the changes from the 2003 Stagg Bowl.)

The questions are:

1. Is Mount still getting the talent - YES, but does that talent have the size, speed and athletic ability
    INHO, they do not.

2. How did Coach V. Kehres handle the defense and HC coach responsibility- He would tell you (I
    (think)  that he did pretty well as HC, but is very disappointed in how the defense struggled.

3. What does this mean for next year and recruiting. The Raiders return 12-13 starters and for
     recruiting the made it to the Stagg Bowl for 18th time.

4. Will the big loss affect the recruiting, I think not. We are talking a program over 20 years with
    so many records to list. This year's game was only one game. Did  UWW's 7-3 record hurt
    them, No since it is about the program over the long haul.

Your first point is interesting as I noticed it when watching the replay and looking through some of the D3 photos.  In the past Mt's players "wore their uniforms really well".  This year, I saw some talent, but not the same look of the athletes I'm used to seeing in Purple Raider garb. 

As for your 3rd and 4th point, let's face it, this is the recruiting season the other OAC schools MUST make hay.  I'm sure we can all imagine the recruiting pitch going on for the top players. 

[bleedpurple]

Also, after the season they had last year (7-3, missed playoffs). I would say that UWW overachieved this year....big time! Many, including myself, thought they weren't even the best team in their conference...let alone content for a national championship. What a world a difference makes with just a new QB, and some new faces/philosophies on the offensive coaching staff from last year. Unreal.

I think I said it before, that it's a bad sign for the rest of DIII when Mount and UWW can make it to the Stagg Bowl when their best football is possibly ahead of them. For sure that's the case for UWW's offense. Defense should be good at DB and D-line next year, but will have to reload at LB.

Just because you were wrong and others were wrong does not mean UW-W over-achieved.  I will take the other perspective and say that UW-W was underestimated. They were better than most people thought they were, which I tried very hard to point out to people throughout the season. 

I agree with the statement that Mount "properly" achieved. In fact, I think that is almost always the case. I think UW-W "properly" achieved. It seems like over-achieving and under-achieving are designates that are based on people's opinions of the teams. And when people's expectations are not met (because the team exceeded them or fell short), then the team is given the label over-achieving or under-achieving. Sometimes people are just wrong. Teams are what they are. 

[02 Warhawk]

Also, after the season they had last year (7-3, missed playoffs). I would say that UWW overachieved this year....big time! Many, including myself, thought they weren't even the best team in their conference...let alone content for a national championship. What a world a difference makes with just a new QB, and some new faces/philosophies on the offensive coaching staff from last year. Unreal.

I think I said it before, that it's a bad sign for the rest of DIII when Mount and UWW can make it to the Stagg Bowl when their best football is possibly ahead of them. For sure that's the case for UWW's offense. Defense should be good at DB and D-line next year, but will have to reload at LB.

Just because you were wrong and others were wrong does not mean UW-W over-achieved.  I will take the other perspective and say that UW-W was underestimated. They were better than most people thought they were, which I tried very hard to point out to people throughout the season. 

I agree with the statement that Mount "properly" achieved. In fact, I think that is almost always the case. I think UW-W "properly" achieved. It seems like over-achieving and under-achieving are designates that are based on people's opinions of the teams. And when people's expectations are not met (because the team exceeded them or fell short), then the team is given the label over-achieving or under-achieving. Sometimes people are just wrong. Teams are what they are. 

I would agree with "underestimated" more than over "achieved".

By the way...how many times am I going to read the "I was right, you were wrong" post this off season from you?   

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

K & J's Dad,

Have not seen your returning players breakdown for the Raiders that you normally do right after each season. Did I miss it, or
are you like many of us, not yet wanting to discuss 2014?

Mount Union Returning Players from the Stagg Bowl 2-Deep Roster:

Offensive Returners from Stagg Bowl Two-Deep:
WR    2  Luke Meacham - Jr  (Starter)
WR  18  Mike Collichio - So
WR    7  Brian Gainer - So  (Starter)
WR  45  Lane Clark - So
WR  84  Jordan Hargronve - Fr

RB    4  BJ Mitchell  - Fr  (Starter)
RB    6  Mason Minnich - So
RB  34  Logan Nemeth - So

OT  72  Brooks Jenkins - Fr
OT  60  Anthony Presutti - So
OG  67  Michael Frank - So  (Starter)
OG  58  Pat Mahoney - Jr  (Starter)
OG  60  Anthony Presutti - So
C     52  Mitch Doraty - Fr

QB  10  Kevin Burke - Jr  (Starter)
QB  14  Tsurice Scott - So

WR    3  Roman Namdar - So-Eligibility (Tweeted Recently that he was returning to Alliance)

Looks like another year of rebuilding the OL.  I feel better about the returning talent around Burke at the skill positions this year.

Defensive Returners from Stagg Bowl Two-Deep:
CB    5  Tre Jones - So  (Starter)
CB  26  Nick Rodriguez - So
SS  31  Alex Kocheff  - So  (Starter)
SS  25  Cody Pogorelc  - Jr
FS  20  Dax VanAntwerp - So
S      9  Joshua Scott - Jr  (Starter)
S    22  Will Hiteshue - So

DT  90  Tom Lally - So  (Starter)
DT  95  Durum Alarms - So
DT  98  Josh Butler - Jr
DE    6  Ted Rosalva - Jr  (Starter)
DE  38  Stephawn Featherstone - Jr

LB    8  Jonathan Gonell - So  (Starter)
LB    4  Hank Spencer - So  (Starter)
LB  42  LeShawn Luke - So
LB  35  Tanner Roller - So

Seven Returning Starters on D and I think the Backup Safeties got decent amount of playing time.  Gonell and Spencer will be back, so that is good in the middle (I think).  They played well up to the Stagg but looked slow vs. UWW.

[bleedpurple]

Also, after the season they had last year (7-3, missed playoffs). I would say that UWW overachieved this year....big time! Many, including myself, thought they weren't even the best team in their conference...let alone content for a national championship. What a world a difference makes with just a new QB, and some new faces/philosophies on the offensive coaching staff from last year. Unreal.

I think I said it before, that it's a bad sign for the rest of DIII when Mount and UWW can make it to the Stagg Bowl when their best football is possibly ahead of them. For sure that's the case for UWW's offense. Defense should be good at DB and D-line next year, but will have to reload at LB.

Just because you were wrong and others were wrong does not mean UW-W over-achieved.  I will take the other perspective and say that UW-W was underestimated. They were better than most people thought they were, which I tried very hard to point out to people throughout the season. 

I agree with the statement that Mount "properly" achieved. In fact, I think that is almost always the case. I think UW-W "properly" achieved. It seems like over-achieving and under-achieving are designates that are based on people's opinions of the teams. And when people's expectations are not met (because the team exceeded them or fell short), then the team is given the label over-achieving or under-achieving. Sometimes people are just wrong. Teams are what they are. 

I would agree with "underestimated" more than over "achieved".

By the way...how many times am I going to read the "I was right, you were wrong" post this off season from you?  

Somewhere between 500 and 1,000. 

[bleedpurple]

K & J's Dad,

Have not seen your returning players breakdown for the Raiders that you normally do right after each season. Did I miss it, or
are you like many of us, not yet wanting to discuss 2014?

Mount Union Returning Players from the Stagg Bowl 2-Deep Roster:

Offensive Returners from Stagg Bowl Two-Deep:
WR    2  Luke Meacham - Jr  (Starter)
WR  18  Mike Collichio - So
WR    7  Brian Gainer - So  (Starter)
WR  45  Lane Clark - So
WR  84  Jordan Hargronve - Fr

RB    4  BJ Mitchell  - Fr  (Starter)
RB    6  Mason Minnich - So
RB  34  Logan Nemeth - So

OT  72  Brooks Jenkins - Fr
OT  60  Anthony Presutti - So
OG  67  Michael Frank - So  (Starter)
OG  58  Pat Mahoney - Jr  (Starter)
OG  60  Anthony Presutti - So
C     52  Mitch Doraty - Fr

QB  10  Kevin Burke - Jr  (Starter)
QB  14  Tsurice Scott - So

WR    3  Roman Namdar - So-Eligibility (Tweeted Recently that he was returning to Alliance)

Looks like another year of rebuilding the OL.  I feel better about the returning talent around Burke at the skill positions this year.

Defensive Returners from Stagg Bowl Two-Deep:
CB    5  Tre Jones - So  (Starter)
CB  26  Nick Rodriguez - So
SS  31  Alex Kocheff  - So  (Starter)
SS  25  Cody Pogorelc  - Jr
FS  20  Dax VanAntwerp - So
S      9  Joshua Scott - Jr  (Starter)
S    22  Will Hiteshue - So

DT  90  Tom Lally - So  (Starter)
DT  95  Durum Alarms - So
DT  98  Josh Butler - Jr
DE    6  Ted Rosalva - Jr  (Starter)
DE  38  Stephawn Featherstone - Jr

LB    8  Jonathan Gonell - So  (Starter)
LB    4  Hank Spencer - So  (Starter)
LB  42  LeShawn Luke - So
LB  35  Tanner Roller - So

Seven Returning Starters on D and I think the Backup Safeties got decent amount of playing time.  Gonell and Spencer will be back, so that is good in the middle (I think).  They played well up to the Stagg but looked slow vs. UWW.

I think Pat mentioned during the last podcast that he learned at the Stagg Bowl that Wilkinson is back at wide receiver as well.  He looks like a pretty talented kid from the little I have been able to watch him.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

I think Pat mentioned during the last podcast that he learned at the Stagg Bowl that Wilkinson is back at wide receiver as well.  He looks like a pretty talented kid from the little I have been able to watch him.

Listed as a Senior on the playoff roster, but it would be nice if he was back.

I just read that UWW had 10 returning on Offense and 6 or 7 returning on Defense.  Will be a big mountain to climb.

[Dr. Acula]

Wilkinson was a senior, but Pat did say on the final ATN podcast he had a 5th year if he chooses. 

[Raider 68]

Wilkinson was a senior, but Pat did say on the final ATN podcast he had a 5th year if he chooses. 

Would be great if he does. That would mean 4 starting WR's if you count Collichio who started a few
games when Gainer was out. Add that to a starting backfield. The Raiders will have the offense in
2014, but will their defense be better?

[bleedpurple]

Wilkinson was a senior, but Pat did say on the final ATN podcast he had a 5th year if he chooses. 

Would be great if he does. That would mean 4 starting WR's if you count Collichio who started a few
games when Gainer was out. Add that to a starting backfield. The Raiders will have the offense in
2014, but will their defense be better?

This has to be a huge, huge focus for the Purple Raiders in the off-season. They fully deserved to be in the Stagg Bowl in 2013.  But even if their offense is lights out again next season, without significant improvement on the defensive side of the ball, their Stagg Bowl streak could be in jeopardy. Given the high standards, I would think the number of points allowed the last few games would be pretty alarming to those within the program.

[pradierguy]

Green Bay went down this evening. Here's to hoping this is the year Dom Capers retires from the NFL and comes home to run the Purple Raiders defense!

[jaypeter]

I would also say that part of the "Mount Union overachieved" sentiment was from the quarter and semifinal games in particular and the last 5 or 6 games as well.  Clearly we saw a defensive difference as the year went on and the better offenses saw things they could exploit and were able to put pressure on the Purple Raiders.  Some of that overachieving sentiment comes, I think, from the fact that nobody would have been surprised by Mount losing either the quarter or semifinal games but they were games they did manage to win. 

[emma17]

I would also say that part of the "Mount Union overachieved" sentiment was from the quarter and semifinal games in particular and the last 5 or 6 games as well.  Clearly we saw a defensive difference as the year went on and the better offenses saw things they could exploit and were able to put pressure on the Purple Raiders.  Some of that overachieving sentiment comes, I think, from the fact that nobody would have been surprised by Mount losing either the quarter or semifinal games but they were games they did manage to win.

Personally I would have been shocked if Mt lost its quarterfinal game to Wesley. I don't consider Mt beating Wesley as overachieving. As for NCC in Semi- that was a game that should have been close and it was.

Perhaps the offense overachieved while the defense underachieved?

[Dr. Acula]

Perhaps the offense overachieved while the defense underachieved?

This.  That's exactly what happened,the latter to a larger degree.

Personally, I was more concerned about Witt than Wesley.  I had zero worry about Wesley. I knew they'd be good because it's Wesley, but they weren't a great team by Wesley standards.  I expected a 2-3 TD win. I just didn't think they would be able to score close to enough to keep up.  Obviously that's not what we saw.

[jaypeter]

As point of clarification, I should have said that after the Wesley game some Mount fans wouldn't have been surprised.  While there had been some seeds of concern sowed in the las two weeks of the regular season, they became fully realized against Wesley.  For me, I was only surprised that Wesley staged the comeback they did, I was less surprised at the points (although I still look at the total collapse in that game as a bit of an outlier).  I expected Wesley to be able to score, but to THAT nuts. That was how I felt, and saw a few similar things expressed--many out of sheer frustration and simple reaction--here on the boards.  That was when I became convinced of my own suspicion that Mount would not win it all.  I hadn't yet seen UWW or UMHB play, but knew for myself that it wouldn't matter.  By that point in the season nobody was doubting the offense but the defense had become the concern of the fans.  Special teams was too, but to a lesser extent because we felt Burke could make up for shorter returns.