FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[DE Wesley Fan]

I think the success of the Mount D this week will come with how well they can stop Shane McSweeny, and make Wesley use another one of its options to move the ball. Linfield tried and couldnt do it, and UMHB tried and couldnt also. He is playing with such a purpose right now. If they cannot stop him, the Mount D is in trouble. I feel like he is the equalizer in this one. If Mount can contain McSweeny, then that makes Wesley use other options, and maybe gives Mount an advantage...

On D, I think Wesley needs to make Mount throw the ball. Sure Mickey Inns threw the ball for 407 yards two weeks ago for Linfield. But in that game, we had a big interception that turned the tide. Last week we picked the ball off 3 times too, even though Bailey had some good numbers. Tough to gauge our secondary IMO. Seems like we give up plays but we can make them as well.

I agree they need to stop McSweeny to have success on D, and if they protect too strongly against his running ability that should open up the passing game which is good for us as well.  If they are too focused on McSweeny that may put McAndrew in more single coverage situations so that we can get him more touches than in the past couple of games.  Have also had good success with the long ball and multiple receivers.

Interesting that we see our D so differently - I would feel better about them trying to run the ball.  We've held our own with scrambling QB's this year, and I'd rather take my chances with the run than with our questionable D-backs.  As you said, some plays they come up big but they are almost as likely to get burnt.  One safety has struggled mightily most of the year and I've been surprised more teams haven't keyed in on him.  Drass must see something good in him though as he's kept him in there, so now would be a good time for that patience to pay off.  Will be interesting to see each team's game plan and who can exploit each others weaknesses the best.  Looking forward to a very entertaining game.

[bleedpurple]

No offense intended, but I'm really sensitive and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but the Mount O was nowhere near dominating.   Two possessions starting at roughly the Wabash 10-15 yard line (blocked punt & muffed punt) and Mount only gets 3 points?  That's hardly dominating.

If you want to talk about the defense dominating or the overall game not being in doubt, I could agree with you.  But the Wabash D did a very nice job of controlling Mount.  The play that broke it open was Murray's 46 run off the 2 yard line.  Outside of that one play, Wabash made Mount work very hard for every yard they got.

I Agree. "Dominating" in my limited 5 years as a Raider fan was 2007. Both side of the ball.  Maybe part of it was my being first-impression star-struck, maybe it's my briefer version of the good-old glory days, but we didn't see the offense regularly stopped in short scoring territory (no pun intended) (besides that was Garcon/Davis year), conversions to first down seemed a *yawn* foregone conclusion.  It was almost slap-stick, how MU would score and then turn-over by D would give us another opportunity to score. And we would.  At that time, I didn't know the OAC competition, so it may have been that certain games played out that way, and others were more evenly matched. 

Before my friend Bleeding Perp or someone else to the northwest reminds us who won the Stagg Bowl that year, I'll acknowledge that it wasn't Mount Union.  It wasn't until 45 seconds left in that game that I had the curious realization that we might not pull it out!   

Wabash played us well.  Mount D was (and is) dominant.  Our Offense this year presents multiple resources.  May the quarterbacks be healthy and protected!

Actually, I was just reading your post and was proud of the 07 UW-W team for breaking through and winning against an excellent Mount team, and not just an almost-excellent Mount team  .  It never really crossed my mind to put it in your face that the Warhawks won. Very tempting now that you called me Bleeding Perp, but what's the point?  Pretty sure you remember your opponent.  After all, we've given you a couple of pretty good reminders the last couple of years. 

I admit that I have a newfound respect for Wesley after their comeback against Linfield. McSweeny seems to be playing at a high level. But I still think Mount is Mount. From the posts I read on here and quotes from coaches it appears their defense is very fast and very good.  Speed on defense can force a QB to make mistakes.  I know Mount has their issues on offense.  It sounds like they have great receivers, but my guess (from afar) is that they would try to feed Murray and try to wear down the Wolverines.  I think they will pick their spots and take their shots downfield, but not try to make a living off of it.  I think Mount wins a close one if Wesley limits the turnovers. If Wesley turns the ball over, I could see Mount winning by at least a couple of touchdowns.

[wally_wabash]

From the posts I read on here and quotes from coaches it appears their defense is very fast and very good. 

Yes and yes. 

It sounds like they have great receivers, but my guess (from afar) is that they would try to feed Murray and try to wear down the Wolverines. 

Agree here.  I think the first score in this game is hugely important.  If the Raiders can get on the board first, they are certainly capable of playing safe with the ball (I would recommend not flinging the ball around in the backfield), sitting on the lead, and letting that defense handle their business.  If Wesley can score first and put the pressure on Mount Union's offense to HAVE to score, then Mount Union gets vulnerable, particularly with a freshman QB (if that's how it's going to go).  I won't go as far as to say that the team that scores first will win, but the direction the game takes will be very different depending on who does scratch first. 

[skunks_sidekick]

Update....after doing the dishes for three days in a row, AND cooking dinner Monday night, I am still unable to wrangle a hall pass from the boss for Friday night.  After some deep soul-searching, I feel I have wisely decided to live to fight another day, and therefore, will not be out on Friday night.

Gentleman, please carry on without me.   

The mini-entourage of Skunk, Jr., and myself will be in our usual breakfast spot Saturday morning.

As for the game, look for things to be VERY interesting come Saturday.  As long as the weather is just cold, and not wet/snowy/crappy, Mount will unleash a few new wrinkles that might have the Wesley faithful saying......"hhwha?.....huh?...is THAT LEGAL?"   

I am a bit concerned regarding Wesley's QB running the ball, provided they do it a la B-W style, and basically run him between the tackles.  If he is attempting to run outside, my guess is he will decide that is a BAD IDEA after about the 2nd quarter.

How's Wesley's kicker?  I feel pretty confident in our guy to be consistent, and make the ones he should.

If certain things are in place....Mount by 14-17 points.  If  they are not.......Mount kicks a field goal towards the end of the game to win. 

[bleedpurple]

Seventies and HSCoach were sitting at a bar.  Seventies pointed to two old drunks sitting across the bar and said,

"That's us in 10 years".


Coach replied,  "That's a mirror, dumb ass!"   

[rscl70]

Seventies and HSCoach were sitting at a bar.  Seventies pointed to two old drunks sitting across the bar and said,

"That's us in 10 years".


Coach replied,  "That's a mirror, dumb ass!"   

+K

[HScoach]

Seventies and HSCoach were sitting at a bar.  Seventies pointed to two old drunks sitting across the bar and said,

"That's us in 10 years".


Coach replied,  "That's a mirror, dumb ass!"   

This is wrong on so many levels. 

1.  I don't drink.  So forget the bar.
2.  I don't swear.  So forget the A reference.
2.  In 10 years he'll be too old to drive himself from the home.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Agree here.  I think the first score in this game is hugely important.  If the Raiders can get on the board first, they are certainly capable of playing safe with the ball (I would recommend not flinging the ball around in the backfield), sitting on the lead, and letting that defense handle their business.  If Wesley can score first and put the pressure on Mount Union's offense to HAVE to score, then Mount Union gets vulnerable, particularly with a freshman QB (if that's how it's going to go).

Very good point.

I wonder if Wesley's playmaking freshman, Steven Koudossou, will be the X factor in this game.  Not that UMU hasn't seen a fast receiver before - certainly, they have - but it seems like every Wesley boxscore that I read has a big-play touchdown from this guy (season total: 18 rushes for 372 yards plus 19 catches for 596 yards), and his role has been expanding in the playoffs.

McSweeney is obviously the engine that makes Wesley's offense go, but a big play early from Koudossou could create the situation that wally_wabash describes above.  UMU's defense is so good that sustained drives will be very hard to come by, but Wesley has a few guys with the speed to break a 70-yard touchdown.  UMU is certainly not going to panic if they are down by a TD early, but it's possible that a fluke Wesley touchdown or two could put their offense in the uncomfortable position of NEEDING a few scores.

Of course, Mount could also win this game 38-7 and make me feel very stupid.  Part of me is probably just seeing what I want to see b/c I'm a sucker for the underdog, and I'd love to see a new Stagg Bowl champ.

[DE Wesley Fan]

How's Wesley's kicker?  I feel pretty confident in our guy to be consistent, and make the ones he should.

Good question, different answer each week.  Kicker has hit some decent length field goals this year, and is overall pretty good.  However, we've also had some extra points missed and others blocked.  Special teams in general has had some excellent games and a poor showing or two (punting vs Kean was particularly suspect thanks to that horrible punt formation). 

If certain things are in place....Mount by 14-17 points.  If  they are not.......Mount kicks a field goal towards the end of the game to win.

If the score is that low, I think Mount wins.  IMHO we need a 24 point+ game to be successful. We have the ability to break a big play with either Koudossou or Berrili, and those can be momentum shifters/confidence boosters. That type of score means our offense is having success moving the ball, and I think even a team as good as Mount will be in trouble if we're able to do that. 

[wally_wabash]

Agree here.  I think the first score in this game is hugely important.  If the Raiders can get on the board first, they are certainly capable of playing safe with the ball (I would recommend not flinging the ball around in the backfield), sitting on the lead, and letting that defense handle their business.  If Wesley can score first and put the pressure on Mount Union's offense to HAVE to score, then Mount Union gets vulnerable, particularly with a freshman QB (if that's how it's going to go).

Very good point.

I wonder if Wesley's playmaking freshman, Steven Koudossou, will be the X factor in this game.  Not that UMU hasn't seen a fast receiver before - certainly, they have - but it seems like every Wesley boxscore that I read has a big-play touchdown from this guy (season total: 18 rushes for 372 yards plus 19 catches for 596 yards), and his role has been expanding in the playoffs.

McSweeney is obviously the engine that makes Wesley's offense go, but a big play early from Koudossou could create the situation that wally_wabash describes above.  UMU's defense is so good that sustained drives will be very hard to come by, but Wesley has a few guys with the speed to break a 70-yard touchdown.  UMU is certainly not going to panic if they are down by a TD early, but it's possible that a fluke Wesley touchdown or two could put their offense in the uncomfortable position of NEEDING a few scores.

Of course, Mount could also win this game 38-7 and make me feel very stupid.  Part of me is probably just seeing what I want to see b/c I'm a sucker for the underdog, and I'd love to see a new Stagg Bowl champ.

I'm not sure anybody has the speed to get 70-yard TDs agaisnt UMU's defense unless UMU's defense makes a mistake...a rare occurance, indeed. 

[rscl70]

Seventies and HSCoach were sitting at a bar.  Seventies pointed to two old drunks sitting across the bar and said,

"That's us in 10 years".


Coach replied,  "That's a mirror, dumb ass!"   

This is wrong on so many levels. 

1.  I don't drink.  So forget the bar.
2.  I don't swear.  So forget the A reference.
2.  In 10 years he'll be too old to drive himself from the home.

Come to think of it, 70's doesn't drink either.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm not sure anybody has the speed to get 70-yard TDs agaisnt UMU's defense unless UMU's defense makes a mistake...a rare occurance, indeed.

Oh, I understand, wally.  I guess I should have clarified that Koudossou (and Wesley's other fleet-footed WR) may have the speed to make UMU pay for a mistake - a DB stumbling, a blown coverage over the top - not just that the kid would run right past them.*  I tried to point out that UMU certainly has played fast WR's before, and it's not like they don't have any speed of their own; but Koudossou may have the speed to break a big play IF he gets an opening/mistake from UMU.

*Anecdotally, I have to admit, the difference between a "good" Division III team and the top of Division III was never clearer to me than one particular moment in our playoff loss to Wesley in 2006.  One of our CD's was one-on-one in coverage against a speed merchant from Wesley.  Our kid was a very solid player - 5'11", 185, decent speed, started for three years, graduated with the CMU career record in tackles - and he had perfect coverage technique and position on the play.  The ball went up...and just like that there was a five-yard gap between the WR and our DB.  Complete pass, touchdown Wesley, ballgame.  Our DB had played it absolutely perfectly - there was nothing else that he could have done - he just didn't have the speed to play with Wesley's wideout.

[emma17]

I think the success of the Mount D this week will come with how well they can stop Shane McSweeny, and make Wesley use another one of its options to move the ball. Linfield tried and couldnt do it, and UMHB tried and couldnt also. He is playing with such a purpose right now. If they cannot stop him, the Mount D is in trouble. I feel like he is the equalizer in this one. If Mount can contain McSweeny, then that makes Wesley use other options, and maybe gives Mount an advantage...

On D, I think Wesley needs to make Mount throw the ball. Sure Mickey Inns threw the ball for 407 yards two weeks ago for Linfield. But in that game, we had a big interception that turned the tide. Last week we picked the ball off 3 times too, even though Bailey had some good numbers. Tough to gauge our secondary IMO. Seems like we give up plays but we can make them as well.

After watching the Mt. - Wabash game- IMO Wesley will have a difficult time scoring. The defensive alignment alone creates problems for a running QB. But mostly, the Mt DB's were very impressive. That little #10 played a heck of a game- he's fast, athletic and gutsy. #21 is not too bad either
I don't imagine a high scoring game- especially by Wesley. This Mt defense is simply a different animal than Wesley has played.

[BashDad]

It may be fairly inconspicuous, but the major problem for Wesley on Saturday isn't UMU's defense. Its the Purple Raider offense.

Murray ran for 150 last week, which represented about 5/8 of their entire offensive performance against a--yes--VERY good Wabash defense. Wesley's defense isn't near as good. They're not. With Mount's QB situation, Murray is going to carry the ball a thousand times on Saturday. He's going to run for several thousand yards. You watch. Wesley gave up runs of 25 yards or longer to THREE different running-backs last week. Murray will gash them and Kehres'll ride him all the way to Salem.

Also, this:

"I feel I can do it all," McSweeny said. "I can run, I can pass. If I see something the defenses are throwing at me differently, I can call an audible. Sometimes I'll tuck the ball and run, if everything is covered. I'll see that little lane and turn a negative thing into a positive thing."

Off the record, McSweeny continued: "I also like throwing to receivers and tight-ends and running-backs. I think my cadence is solid and, if I feel like I need to, if its necessary, sometimes I'll go silent count which is where you don't say anything and you just snap the ball. If we don't have any more time-outs, I'll recognize that and I won't call any. So. Are you guys hungry? I make a mean Beef Stroganoff."

38-17 is my guess.

[bleedpurple]

Seventies and HSCoach were sitting at a bar.  Seventies pointed to two old drunks sitting across the bar and said,

"That's us in 10 years".


Coach replied,  "That's a mirror, dumb ass!"   

This is wrong on so many levels. 

1.  I don't drink.  So forget the bar.
2.  I don't swear.  So forget the A reference.
2.  In 10 years he'll be too old to drive himself from the home.

Regardless of the other details, I just thought the beauty and reality of you calling him a dumb ass was too good to pass up!