FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[hsbsballcoach7]

According to UMU's press release their defense only gave up 58 yards in the 2nd half! That's quite a nice adjustment at halftime. It doesn't mean that we still don't need QB pressure if we want to stop better offenses in the future. I assume that we thought we would get beat by their big WR if we left him one on one, but we sure gave their slot guys lots of openings.

[purpled]

I don't think I've read so many negative comments after a Mount WIN. W-I-N!!!! Victory! Don't care how or by how many. One game closer to the prize!

[mr_mom]

Well, you guys are too smart for me.  Almost everyone scored in double-digits the first round of the 2016 OAC Playoff Pick-Em. 

Our first round leaders picking 13 of the 16 games correctly were BillyRayJimBob, desertcat1, and Conventional Wisdom, as once again, all of us are smarter than nearly all of us.

Spreads for Round #2 will come out Monday night.

[HScoach]

I don't think I've read so many negative comments after a Mount WIN. W-I-N!!!! Victory! Don't care how or by how many. One game closer to the prize!

If you're happy with today's 60 minute tussle with Hobart, there's nothing to say.   A team worthy of "the prize" would have rolled them.

[pumkinattack]

According to UMU's press release their defense only gave up 58 yards in the 2nd half! That's quite a nice adjustment at halftime. It doesn't mean that we still don't need QB pressure if we want to stop better offenses in the future. I assume that we thought we would get beat by their big WR if we left him one on one, but we sure gave their slot guys lots of openings.

Given that Hobart had a 9 play 80 yard drive to tie it around the 9 minute mark in the 3rd I think whoever works at Mount struggles with math.  It's closer to 150yds in reality.

You guys won, but I'm legitimately shocked at how the game played out as this Hobart team isn't nearly as good as the 2011-2014 vintages of them.  And I know you think the announcers were no good (though you have to admit your jumping to the gun on homerism has to be adjusted given Ted Bakers spotting discussion on the one first down we got in the third by Barrocas), but it's far better than most student led teams of division 3 schools. 

In general, I expected a loss as I really didn't think much of this vintage of this Hobart team, but was really surprised to be tied well into the third despite not taking advantage of good field position (the scores were on long drives, not all the times we got the ball around midfield), dumb penalties and generally being outcoached.  I'm honestly fascinated by next weeks JHU - MUC matchup because I expected MUC to roll the east region this year and given what I saw today I'm not so sure they're a top ten team this year.  If they are, then I was completely wrong about my boys in Geneva and they're probably a legitimate a 15-20 team because this game wasn't done until midway through the 4th despite all the poor execution of the Bart boys.

For all the non-fans of Vince K, they still are excellent on execution.  My main knock might be some of the 'tude I don't feel like I've seen from prior vintages.  The incorrect crying on the delay of game when we were at our one of one dude demanding a safety (wrongly) and #80 throwing his arms up and pouting on a false start call seemed out of character for a typical, "professional" MUC team. 

At the end of the day my team got beat at home but that wasn't the game I expected to see even with all our weapons on offense.  Not sure how much is my underestimating my team and how much this is an atypical MUC squad but probably a bit of both.

[jamtod]

This is your reminder that Matt Campbell now has a longer winning streak than his alma mater does.

[hsbsballcoach7]

According to UMU's press release their defense only gave up 58 yards in the 2nd half! That's quite a nice adjustment at halftime. It doesn't mean that we still don't need QB pressure if we want to stop better offenses in the future. I assume that we thought we would get beat by their big WR if we left him one on one, but we sure gave their slot guys lots of openings.

Given that Hobart had a 9 play 80 yard drive to tie it around the 9 minute mark in the 3rd I think whoever works at Mount struggles with math.  It's closer to 150yds in reality.

You guys won, but I'm legitimately shocked at how the game played out as this Hobart team isn't nearly as good as the 2011-2014 vintages of them.  And I know you think the announcers were no good (though you have to admit your jumping to the gun on homerism has to be adjusted given Ted Bakers spotting discussion on the one first down we got in the third by Barrocas), but it's far better than most student led teams of division 3 schools. 

In general, I expected a loss as I really didn't think much of this vintage of this Hobart team, but was really surprised to be tied well into the third despite not taking advantage of good field position (the scores were on long drives, not all the times we got the ball around midfield), dumb penalties and generally being outcoached.  I'm honestly fascinated by next weeks JHU - MUC matchup because I expected MUC to roll the east region this year and given what I saw today I'm not so sure they're a top ten team this year.  If they are, then I was completely wrong about my boys in Geneva and they're probably a legitimate a 15-20 team because this game wasn't done until midway through the 4th despite all the poor execution of the Bart boys.

For all the non-fans of Vince K, they still are excellent on execution.  My main knock might be some of the 'tude I don't feel like I've seen from prior vintages.  The incorrect crying on the delay of game when we were at our one of one dude demanding a safety (wrongly) and #80 throwing his arms up and pouting on a false start call seemed out of character for a typical, "professional" MUC team. 

At the end of the day my team got beat at home but that wasn't the game I expected to see even with all our weapons on offense.  Not sure how much is my underestimating my team and how much this is an atypical MUC squad but probably a bit of both.

I read another article and saw that drive yardage and boy was that stat I said wrong, unless I completely misread it (which is very possible). Either way, the further I get from the game ending, the more happy I am with a win. We just need to find how we can win each game by exploiting weaknesses and I'm confident that our staff will do that until we run into a more talented and better coached team this year. I think this freshman and sophomore class, with some work and surrounded by others, has the talent to be put back up there with the "typical" UMU teams. This is the 2nd game all year where they had to play well for 4 quarters. I'm not giving passes, but I am saying that we've made the playoffs and won our first round game on the road with a "bad" team in some people's eyes...that's pretty special IMO. It's about the journey right now!

[Raider 68]

A few thoughts on the Raider's game today:

- I listened to the game, could not get the video to play

- Some good news, no turnovers today

- efficient passing 20-29 over 300 yards.

- no injuries

- Some concerns, unable to curtail long drives by Hobart, pass rush spotty as best.

- too much perimeter running, need that bigger back for the middle

Expectations for next week:

- pack your bags again

- another good opposition QB

-  if the Raiders can win next Saturday, they will win the bracket IMHO

- Still a very young team, but growing quickly

- How do they compare with other Mount playoff teams ?- they simply do not at this point

- My expectations are not great these playoffs, but my optimism  for the future is very high

[raiderpa]

No real Mount fan would say that this team is in any way comparable to the past juggernauts.
I believe the coaches are doing a fantastic job getting the most out of these young kids and upperclassmen who may not have seen the field on past teams.
I feel the season is extremely successful, all things considered, and playoff wins are really bonuses this season.  The resilience of this young team has been remarkable and they could have folded the past couple weeks and hung in there proudly. The seniors are doing a great job of leading.
I really do not know if they will beat Johns Hopkins, but they will not be out hustled, out coached, or out prepared.  Their time for bronze and walnut is down the road, maybe as early as next season.
Fight Raiders. We are proud of your efforts.

[Desertraider]

According to UMU's press release their defense only gave up 58 yards in the 2nd half! That's quite a nice adjustment at halftime. It doesn't mean that we still don't need QB pressure if we want to stop better offenses in the future. I assume that we thought we would get beat by their big WR if we left him one on one, but we sure gave their slot guys lots of openings.

Given that Hobart had a 9 play 80 yard drive to tie it around the 9 minute mark in the 3rd I think whoever works at Mount struggles with math.  It's closer to 150yds in reality.

You guys won, but I'm legitimately shocked at how the game played out as this Hobart team isn't nearly as good as the 2011-2014 vintages of them.  And I know you think the announcers were no good (though you have to admit your jumping to the gun on homerism has to be adjusted given Ted Bakers spotting discussion on the one first down we got in the third by Barrocas), but it's far better than most student led teams of division 3 schools. 

In general, I expected a loss as I really didn't think much of this vintage of this Hobart team, but was really surprised to be tied well into the third despite not taking advantage of good field position (the scores were on long drives, not all the times we got the ball around midfield), dumb penalties and generally being outcoached.  I'm honestly fascinated by next weeks JHU - MUC matchup because I expected MUC to roll the east region this year and given what I saw today I'm not so sure they're a top ten team this year.  If they are, then I was completely wrong about my boys in Geneva and they're probably a legitimate a 15-20 team because this game wasn't done until midway through the 4th despite all the poor execution of the Bart boys.

For all the non-fans of Vince K, they still are excellent on execution.  My main knock might be some of the 'tude I don't feel like I've seen from prior vintages.  The incorrect crying on the delay of game when we were at our one of one dude demanding a safety (wrongly) and #80 throwing his arms up and pouting on a false start call seemed out of character for a typical, "professional" MUC team. 

At the end of the day my team got beat at home but that wasn't the game I expected to see even with all our weapons on offense.  Not sure how much is my underestimating my team and how much this is an atypical MUC squad but probably a bit of both.

Are we talking football or wines Vintages? Anyway - the game was closer than some expected, the "some" that have not seen Mount play this year or the "some" that have read nothing on this board in the last week, or both. So this Hobart team is not as good as some of the previous vintages. Neither is this Mount team. That has been discussed ad nauseum on the board for the entire season. Given this Mount teams youth, a win is a win. Take it and move on. Had last years Mount team met this Hobart squad, sure it would have been different (like 50-0 at half). These Raiders aint those Raiders. Half time adjustments were again key to this win. As far as a "professional" Mount team - eh. If this was a Senior laden squad I would agree. It isn't. They are not all Freshman, but most are first year starters and this is their first playoff game. They will grow.

Call of the day goes to Noah Hiles on WRMU. End of 1st quarter, Noah says "Other scores around the country. OAC Champ John Carroll...............I need mouthwash from just saying that." Nice one Big Noah.

[pumkinattack]

I think we're generally in agreement, just expected it to be a blowout and it was a game.  Not crapping on your parade but don't see your team winning a championship or even making the finals based on what I saw (more of a D issue than O, our rush offense sucks balls and it still could get 3-4yds up the middle against the D).  Feel like I'm leaning towards JHU next week given what I saw, which is a shock to me.  As for the professionalism, based on my experience I agree with your sentiment and yet I sort of expect more given all the "we've been there for years and it's innate in everything MUC" attitude to see some of that and just wonder if that's any hint of a difference between VK and LK is all.  Maybe not, but would you all have made the same "they're young" defense during the Lk era? That's all to that comment.  Hell, Hobart has been super undisciplined and stupid the past few years,a real departure from the earlier Coach Cragg years when he was building a winning program in Geneva so I'm all too familiar with young dumb actions, just didn't expect it out of a MUC team. 

[ohiofan1954]

 Good game by John Carroll in bad wind conditions. Fist time this year I have been to a game when it was cold. What is going on with J.C. p.a.t's? That makes 4 missed kicks in two weeks, 3 blocks. I am guessing both teams went to 2 point conversions because of the wind but still the blocked kicks is going to bite J.C. sooner or later.

[section13raiderfan]

The trend in coaching now is no tackling in practice to prevent injuries. I don't know if this is true at UMU, but a certain HS coach that graduated from UMU employed it and it showed on game day. If your roster is really that thin then OK. Its a fundamental. When you have fundamental weaknesses, practice the fundamentals! (Can ya hear me Brownies?) One thing I would like to see improve is the Qb not locking eyes on his #1 receiver after the snap. We don't need to be that obvious in the playoffs. Whatever happened to sneaking the running back out of the backfield for a short pass in space? Anyone remember a guy named Dave Hassey? It could work for BJ too. It seems as if there is no "pounder" to be found this season at RB. Maybe there is a "Refrigerator" type at another position. Wouldn't hurt to look.

[rscl70]

No real Mount fan would say that this team is in any way comparable to the past juggernauts.
I believe the coaches are doing a fantastic job getting the most out of these young kids and upperclassmen who may not have seen the field on past teams.
I feel the season is extremely successful, all things considered, and playoff wins are really bonuses this season.  The resilience of this young team has been remarkable and they could have folded the past couple weeks and hung in there proudly. The seniors are doing a great job of leading.
I really do not know if they will beat Johns Hopkins, but they will not be out hustled, out coached, or out prepared.  Their time for bronze and walnut is down the road, maybe as early as next season.
Fight Raiders. We are proud of your efforts.

Well said. It's time this team got some credit for what they have accomplished in their own right instead of being constantly criticized as a disappointment compared to past teams.  They are 10-1 and heading to the second round of the playoffs.  Only at Mount Union (or perhaps Whitewater) would this be considered unsatisfactory.  If they lose next week every one will say "I told you so", if they win everyone will say they should have won by more.  Maybe it's time to be fans instead of critics and give these guys some credit.  The future looks bright and the blowouts will come.  Could it be time to just support this team and enjoy them for their accomplishments instead of constantly pointing out their shortcomings?

[wesleydad]

Hello Mount fans, looking for an early read on John Carroll.  Also, you guys have a tough game this weekend.  I think this may be the best Hopkins team they have had.