FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Raider 68]

To all the OAC posters, I wish you and your families a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Heathy NewYear!

[rscl70]

Merry Christmas!

[wesleydad]

Merry Christmas to all my Mount friends.  Nice seeing you all in Salem, tough end to the season.  I am sure I will be seeing you at some point next year.

[voice]

Merry Christmas to Mount Union fans, among the best D3 fans in the country!

[purpled]

A Happy New Year to all!

A huge THANK YOU!! to all associated with the Mount football program. All of you provided all of us with some of the greatest games and moments in Mount football history. The NC game was a classic and I'll remember it forever!

ROLL RAIDERS ROLL!!

[Raider 68]

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?

[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.

[Raider 68]

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!

[Raider 68]

Wishing all the OAC posters and their families a Happy and Healthy New Year!

[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.

[Dr. Acula]

Interesting theory indeed.  I assumed they went with Nemeth as he's a better blocker and receiver in order to give them more options with protection and play calling in an attempt to slow down the UWW rush a little.

I think people are saying this team overachieved because they saw Burke and not much else emerged.  That's not to say those weren't good players.  They absolutely were.  I'm talking about by Mount standards here.  Mitchell is exciting and had a GREAT freshman season.  I'm pumped about him moving forward.  But Mount always seemed to replace one game changer with another for years.  They didn't have that this year until a freshman grabbed the job.  Honestly, the most dynamic athlete with game changing ability to emerge aside from Mitchell appeared to be back up QB Taurice Scott. 

I think the talent is there.  It was just inexperienced (and under a new HC) and not ready to take on UWW just yet.  That's a testament to where the UWW program is as much as anything.  If that was a Shades Keeler coached team maybe we have a repeat of 98?  But Leipold isn't Shades.  Now we see what this new coaching staff can do because they have a ton of guys returning who have experience now.   

p.s. I don't think this team overachieved.  I think they were better than everyone except UWW and UMHB so I suppose given the draw they properly achieved in my mind. 

[Dr. Acula]

Also, I think many posters (myself included) may have initially felt like the team overachieved due to the sour taste in our mouths from the defensive performance the last few games.  We are so unaccustomed to stuff like that it probably skewed our view on the team far more than it should have.  I know I was guilty of overreacting to it.

[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.

[Raider 68]

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. 

[emma17]

Interesting theory indeed.  I assumed they went with Nemeth as he's a better blocker and receiver in order to give them more options with protection and play calling in an attempt to slow down the UWW rush a little.

I think people are saying this team overachieved because they saw Burke and not much else emerged.  That's not to say those weren't good players.  They absolutely were.  I'm talking about by Mount standards here.  Mitchell is exciting and had a GREAT freshman season.  I'm pumped about him moving forward.  But Mount always seemed to replace one game changer with another for years.  They didn't have that this year until a freshman grabbed the job.  Honestly, the most dynamic athlete with game changing ability to emerge aside from Mitchell appeared to be back up QB Taurice Scott. 

I think the talent is there.  It was just inexperienced (and under a new HC) and not ready to take on UWW just yet.  That's a testament to where the UWW program is as much as anything.  If that was a Shades Keeler coached team maybe we have a repeat of 98?  But Leipold isn't Shades.  Now we see what this new coaching staff can do because they have a ton of guys returning who have experience now.   

p.s. I don't think this team overachieved.  I think they were better than everyone except UWW and UMHB so I suppose given the draw they properly achieved in my mind.

Good post Dr A.
As the outsider looking in, it feels you hit it right in saying they properly achieved.  They beat every team they should have beat.