FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[79jaybird]

I have to get this off my chest because it  has been bothering all day.  Why or what possessed Lovie Smith and the Bears to squib kick that kickoff after they just took the lead with 11 seconds?  For the life of me, I cannot understand why you wouldn't kick it deep? 
If they kick it deep and Atlanta has a good return then THEY earned it.  But, IMO squib kicking the ball was a huge advantage for the Falcons almost appearing as if they "handed them the game".    Uggh!  We should be 6-0 but instead 3-3.

[usee]

I have to get this off my chest because it  has been bothering all day.  Why or what possessed Lovie Smith and the Bears to squib kick that kickoff after they just took the lead with 11 seconds?  For the life of me, I cannot understand why you wouldn't kick it deep? 
If they kick it deep and Atlanta has a good return then THEY earned it.  But, IMO squib kicking the ball was a huge advantage for the Falcons almost appearing as if they "handed them the game".    Uggh!  We should be 6-0 but instead 3-3.

I am more upset with the corner on that last throw. if you watch the replay, he is breaking on an underneath reciever at the 50 instead of keeping his depth to get under that deep out cut. How can you not defend the 30-40 yd line with your entire secondary in that situation?

[Dennis_Prikkel]

I have to get this off my chest because it  has been bothering all day.  Why or what possessed Lovie Smith and the Bears to squib kick that kickoff after they just took the lead with 11 seconds?  For the life of me, I cannot understand why you wouldn't kick it deep? 
If they kick it deep and Atlanta has a good return then THEY earned it.  But, IMO squib kicking the ball was a huge advantage for the Falcons almost appearing as if they "handed them the game".    Uggh!  We should be 6-0 but instead 3-3.

Way off-topic as you said - the Bears team is paying big-time for Lovie's loyalty to his defensive coordinator.  Why did the Bears rush only four on the last offensive play.  The best pass defense is always a good pass rush.  And why with seven guys in pass coverage was their only one Bears defender anywhere near the last play.  Were the other guys just mesmerized by the pass.

No that was bad defensive play calling - and its cost the Bears three games - but Lovie has proved that loyalty to his defensive coordinator is more important than winning games - he should have called him out.

dgp

[Tailgater]

Carthage Fan, I  did meander around the Carthage Tailgate looking for Tailgater.  I am always impressed with the Carthage Tailgate which by far, has the most members and most varieties of food/beverages going. 

Your Son is a great ball player and I know that the Red Men are down emotionally.  Turnovers and penalties was the story for both teams.  I.E. Elmhurst defense stopping the Red Men only to give the ball back as the punt bounces off an EC upback,  or Kudyba throwing an INT early in the 3rd quarter etc.

While there were numerous penalties and turnovers I still direct the credit towards the EC defense and Kudyba/Long for stepping up in the 4th quarter to climb their way back into the game.

Good luck to Carthage next weekend.  I know I will be rooting for a red team, just don't know which red 

You didn't look very hard Jaybird. I was by the Red tent or at the big grill from 9:30 until game time. Those couple of beverages I had saved for you came in handy after the game.

I'm not sure I follow your comment that this was a "Statement game" for Elmhurst (in regards to a new Coaching staff). Many of the key players carried over from last year and their effort (as well as result) was consistent with last season IMO. The only statement I saw from this game was....if your opponent commits enough mistakes (untimely penalties and turnovers) and they can't convert possessions inside the 5 yard line into points you stand a reasonable chance of beating them. Credit to the Bluejay defense. They made the plays they had too (particularly the DBs) down on the goal line. If Carthage runs the ball in those situations I think there is a great possibility of a different outcome. The Red Men made this same error against Campbell University while driving late for the winning score. While inside the 5 yd line, the ball was picked off at the 1 and returned 99 yards for a backbreaking score.

[79jaybird]

Tailgater- thank you and I will have to take you up on that beverage in the future!

When I was referring to statement I meant it more in that nobody other than Comet or myself (moreso Comet) thought that Elmhurst would be able to pull this one out, especially coming off an Augie loss where we couldn't run the ball and penalties/turnovers killed us.

I think the statement is more that Elmhurst is not that far away from jumping into the top 4.  They still have to beat an Augie/Wheaton/ (now NC) to climb the ladder, and beat these teams more consistently,  but I think they (Elm) just beat a very good Carthage team.

[Comet 14]

"Usee- good points and I agree with you that turnovers are an achilles heel for Carthage right now.  Flat out, they had us dead to rights and let us hang around close enough for us to climb back into the game and win it.  I know up in the booth, when Carthage scored two TD's in that 3rd quarter, I thought we were going to be in trouble. "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Jaybird and usee, I agree that the rate of the turnovers for Carthage have to be the biggest concern for the Redmen right now, but lets not forget that all 26 points that they did score against Elmhurst were off of Bluejay turnovers giving Carthage a short field. Every Carthage scoring drive started on Elmhurst's side of the 50.
[/quote]

Yes but that's the bluejay's problem. Carthage has shown it can score on everybody. They are at times inconsistent with their offense but they can put up numbers and I wouldn't expect that to change either. 


That is my point exactly usee. Everybody keeps focusing on Carthage turnovers and not the fact that Carthage did not score 1 point when they did not have a short field after a Elmhurst T.O. 2 of the Carthage T.O.'s while stopping them from scoring did not directly set up points for Elmhurst. 1 was a touchback giving Elmhurst the ball at their own 20, and one was a hail mary pass at the end of the first half.

[usee]

"Usee- good points and I agree with you that turnovers are an achilles heel for Carthage right now.  Flat out, they had us dead to rights and let us hang around close enough for us to climb back into the game and win it.  I know up in the booth, when Carthage scored two TD's in that 3rd quarter, I thought we were going to be in trouble. "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Jaybird and usee, I agree that the rate of the turnovers for Carthage have to be the biggest concern for the Redmen right now, but lets not forget that all 26 points that they did score against Elmhurst were off of Bluejay turnovers giving Carthage a short field. Every Carthage scoring drive started on Elmhurst's side of the 50.

Yes but that's the bluejay's problem. Carthage has shown it can score on everybody. They are at times inconsistent with their offense but they can put up numbers and I wouldn't expect that to change either. 


That is my point exactly usee. Everybody keeps focusing on Carthage turnovers and not the fact that Carthage did not score 1 point when they did not have a short field after a Elmhurst T.O. 2 of the Carthage T.O.'s while stopping them from scoring did not directly set up points for Elmhurst. 1 was a touchback giving Elmhurst the ball at their own 20, and one was a hail mary pass at the end of the first half.
[/quote]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. can you clarify?

[Mugsy]

But I think they (Elm) just beat a very good Carthage team.

I don't mean this as a insult to Carthage as I don't know enough first hand, but is Carthage a "very good" team?

They beat Hope (a team many thought was respectable but is now 0-6 and Carthage had 0 INT's), they beat Lakeland (who is 2-3 and their 2 victories are over weak NATHC opponents), and yes they beat IWU, which is a very impressive victory.

My previous post regarding attributes of the Carthage team thus far in 2008 points out some glaring potential weaknesses.  I know it is a some what fruitless exercise, but minus the fire power passing the ball Carthage could very well be 2-3 or 1-4.

Just asking...

I know my questions probably will be sorted out in a significant way over the next 2 weeks as they take on North Central and Augie.

[Comet 14]

I think that everybody is at the stance that Carthage gave this game away and I think it is just the opposite. Yes it was a great comeback at the end of the game but if you look at the game as a whole Carthage would not have been up as much as they were if not for the T.O.'s and short fields that they enjoyed in the first half. So the same mis-fortune that cost them the game at the end gave them the lead in the first place. The offense that you say can " score on anybody " could not score Sat. when they were not given a short field.

[usee]

But I think they (Elm) just beat a very good Carthage team.

I don't mean this as a insult to Carthage as I don't know enough first hand, but is Carthage a "very good" team?

They beat Hope (a team many thought was respectable but is now 0-6 and Carthage had 0 INT's), they beat Lakeland (who is 2-3 and their 2 victories are over weak NATHC opponents), and yes they beat IWU, which is a very impressive victory.

My previous post regarding attributes of the Carthage team thus far in 2008 points out some glaring potential weaknesses.  I know it is a some what fruitless exercise, but minus the fire power passing the ball Carthage could very well be 2-3 or 1-4.

Just asking...

I know my questions probably will be sorted out in a significant way over the next 2 weeks as they take on North Central and Augie.

You point out the Jekyll and Hyde personality of the Carthage team Mugsy. I think you can make a strong case that if they turn it over half as much they would be 5-0 just as easily as you could make a case for 1-4 if they didn't get some of the breaks they have recieved.

[Mugsy]

I think that everybody is at the stance that Carthage gave this game away and I think it is just the opposite. Yes it was a great comeback at the end of the game but if you look at the game as a whole Carthage would not have been up as much as they were if not for the T.O.'s and short fields that they enjoyed in the first half. So the same mis-fortune that cost them the game at the end gave them the lead in the first place. The offense that you say can " score on anybody " could not score Sat. when they were not given a short field.

I'm not saying that at all, but I am trying to get some dialogue as to whether or not Carthage should be considered a "very good" team at this point in time.  

If they correct some of their defensive issues and their turnovers, I could see saying "yes" to that question given the explosiveness of their offense.  But they haven't shown much ability to shutdown their opponents yet and unless you correct the penalties, turnovers and other lapses...  the jury is out IMO.  Good (and great) teams excel in all phases of the game - offense, defense and special teams.  The issues Carthage has had to this point will put them in a serious bind against tougher opponents.

We've already seen against Elmhurst that when facing a tougher defense, it is too big a hill to climb to overcome the mistakes of penalties, turnovers and failure to execute in the red-zone.  Elmhurst made the plays when it counted, Carthage didn't.

I don't mean it to be a slight on Elmhurst's win over Carthage, but I'm not yet ready to move Elmhurst into the top tier of the CCIW yet.  If they win 2 of 3 against Wheaton, NCC and IWU, then they are in the picture.  

Elmhurst has already been beaten soundly by Augie.  I know there is discussion that the game was closer than it looked, but 21-6 or 42-6... that still isn't close enough.  And they have beaten Carthage in a rivalry game, where both teams had 5 turnovers.  I'm still not sure where to place Carthage, so I'm not 100% sure of the quality of that win.  Could Carthage win the remainder of their games?  Given their offense... yes.  At their current level of play, I don't think it is unrealistic that they could lose 2 of 3 or 3 of 3 against NCC, Wheaton and Augie.

[Mugsy]

But I think they (Elm) just beat a very good Carthage team.

I don't mean this as a insult to Carthage as I don't know enough first hand, but is Carthage a "very good" team?

They beat Hope (a team many thought was respectable but is now 0-6 and Carthage had 0 INT's), they beat Lakeland (who is 2-3 and their 2 victories are over weak NATHC opponents), and yes they beat IWU, which is a very impressive victory.

My previous post regarding attributes of the Carthage team thus far in 2008 points out some glaring potential weaknesses.  I know it is a some what fruitless exercise, but minus the fire power passing the ball Carthage could very well be 2-3 or 1-4.

Just asking...

I know my questions probably will be sorted out in a significant way over the next 2 weeks as they take on North Central and Augie.

You point out the Jekyll and Hyde personality of the Carthage team Mugsy. I think you can make a strong case that if they turn it over half as much they would be 5-0 just as easily as you could make a case for 1-4 if they didn't get some of the breaks they have recieved.

Yes, but I don't think their only issue is turnovers. 

Turnovers is what has cost them to this point.  But masked by their fire power in passing and some explosive scoring is horrible performance on both sides of the ball in the red-zone and a defense that appears (statistically) to have some issues.  Yes, Elmhurst played a role in stopping Carthage in the red-zone, but Carthage's red-zone "whoa's" span 4 games.

Hope doesn't count because they didn't stop Carthage all day and haven't stopped anyone all year - they are giving up nearly 40 points a game.

These are questions I have right now for Carthage that I'm sure will be much clearer by the time they face Wheaton during the last week of the season.

[usee]

I think that everybody is at the stance that Carthage gave this game away and I think it is just the opposite. Yes it was a great comeback at the end of the game but if you look at the game as a whole Carthage would not have been up as much as they were if not for the T.O.'s and short fields that they enjoyed in the first half. So the same mis-fortune that cost them the game at the end gave them the lead in the first place. The offense that you say can " score on anybody " could not score Sat. when they were not given a short field.

I never said Carthage gave this game away. (see my response to mugsy above). I am looking at Carthage as a team over the course of 5 games, not this one. I don't think very many people on here thought Elmhurst would beat Carthage in Kenosha. Carthage had 1 impressive victory (at IWU) and Elmhurst had 1 really bad loss (hammered at home vs Augie). So I think it was a safe assumption for most that Carthage was the favorite at home. I think it's also safe to say that if Carthage didn't turn the ball over they would have won easily saturday. (you could also say this of Elmhurst).

I haven't seen either team this season but going into last Saturday I would have said if neither team turned it over Carthage would win by a margin. Elmhurst now has a tough win under their belt in my opinion. If they were playing again this weekend, I would bet on Carthage. I haven't seen anything that would change that opinion yet. Both of these teams need to get a quality win ( a clean game against a good opponent) to turn the tide of their season.

I do think both of these teams will grow into their new systems and be better each week. Carthage has a tough test this saturday at Naperville. Elmhurst gets a week to polish up their act against NPU.

[washdupcard]

I have to get this off my chest because it  has been bothering all day.  Why or what possessed Lovie Smith and the Bears to squib kick that kickoff after they just took the lead with 11 seconds?  For the life of me, I cannot understand why you wouldn't kick it deep? 
If they kick it deep and Atlanta has a good return then THEY earned it.  But, IMO squib kicking the ball was a huge advantage for the Falcons almost appearing as if they "handed them the game".    Uggh!  We should be 6-0 but instead 3-3.

Way off-topic as you said - the Bears team is paying big-time for Lovie's loyalty to his defensive coordinator.  Why did the Bears rush only four on the last offensive play.  The best pass defense is always a good pass rush.  And why with seven guys in pass coverage was their only one Bears defender anywhere near the last play.  Were the other guys just mesmerized by the pass.

No that was bad defensive play calling - and its cost the Bears three games - but Lovie has proved that loyalty to his defensive coordinator is more important than winning games - he should have called him out.

dgp

In light of the fact that the Falcons previous kickoff return went 85 yrds and that the Bears had a number of their kickoff coverage guys hurt and out of the game, the decision to proceed with a squib kick was sound.  However, the execution of the squib by Gould was horrible.  I do not blame Lovie for that decision.  I do however, blame him and Ron Turner for failing to score when they had 3rd and Goal from the 1.  Horrible play calling on those two plays.

[Mugsy]

I have to get this off my chest because it  has been bothering all day.  Why or what possessed Lovie Smith and the Bears to squib kick that kickoff after they just took the lead with 11 seconds?  For the life of me, I cannot understand why you wouldn't kick it deep? 
If they kick it deep and Atlanta has a good return then THEY earned it.  But, IMO squib kicking the ball was a huge advantage for the Falcons almost appearing as if they "handed them the game".    Uggh!  We should be 6-0 but instead 3-3.

Way off-topic as you said - the Bears team is paying big-time for Lovie's loyalty to his defensive coordinator.  Why did the Bears rush only four on the last offensive play.  The best pass defense is always a good pass rush.  And why with seven guys in pass coverage was their only one Bears defender anywhere near the last play.  Were the other guys just mesmerized by the pass.

No that was bad defensive play calling - and its cost the Bears three games - but Lovie has proved that loyalty to his defensive coordinator is more important than winning games - he should have called him out.

dgp

In light of the fact that the Falcons previous kickoff return went 85 yrds and that the Bears had a number of their kickoff coverage guys hurt and out of the game, the decision to proceed with a squib kick was sound.  However, the execution of the squib by Gould was horrible.  I do not blame Lovie for that decision.  I do however, blame him and Ron Turner for failing to score when they had 3rd and Goal from the 1.  Horrible play calling on those two plays.

Agreed.  It should not have come to that squib kick if the Bears execute on 3rd and Goal from the 1.

It also did not help that Bears were without their starting DB's.