FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[bison22]

I don't know why people are critiquing Coach Hardy or any Wheaton Coach, because I think 9 out of 10 non-Wheaton persons would say the Wheaton Staff is doing the right things/pushing the right buttons.
Just because this is Coach Hardy's first year, doesn't mean he hasn't gone through the ropes, knows what works/doesn't work, and hasn't had mentors to observe from.  They don't just "throw him to the fishes" and sink/swim.

From what I saw of Ullrich he is a solid QB and will do fine as a starter next year.  Speaking of QB's I think replacing Kniss is going to be the single, most difficult thing for NC to do next year.  That is probably the only "disadvantage" of having an All-American QB is that once he graduates, who's going to step up and pick up where he left off?


Jaybird, you are right about Ullrich and Kniss.   The latter's departure is a huge loss for the CCIW and for NC.   Not sure who will step up in Naperville and what QB will lead the CCIW. 

[HScoach]

Not sure what my limited opinion will add to this QB discussion as I only saw Wheaton this year against MUC.  But from doing the MUC/Wheaton game I came away thinking that "Wheaton would be a very good team if they a had a capable QB".  Neither of the QB's impressed me.  The 2 biggest passing plays in the game came on floaters down the middle of the field that I was very surprised weren't going to be intercepted as soon as the ball left the QB's hand. 

The Wheaton WR's seemed fine, the O-line played about as well as any have against the MUC defense this year and Chaz Black did more than I expected on the ground.  Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the Wheaton offense except for the QB's.

Defensively, the Wheaton front 7 got absolutely and completely dominated.  And that was with 2 of the original MUC O-line starters lost with injuries.  Couldn't get a good read on the Wheaton secondary as MUC didn't really try to attack via the passing game other than doing so enough to keep the defense somewhat honest. 

Was also very surprised with the Wheaton defensive gameplan.  Given MUC's production and balance between passing and running, it's almost impossible to stop them playing a "straight up" or balanced defensive plan.  Unless you can dominate the line of scrimmage with your front 4, you have to commit a ton of people at the line to stop the running game and to create instant pressure on the QB.  It appeared that Wheaton was afraid to attack as it might give up a big play to Garcon, but if you sit back and read/react you're going to be crushed. 

Obviously you take try to take away a team's true strength first, but MUC is very well balanced so you're kind of in a catch22.  I look at it this way, if you have to pick your poison when defending a balanced team, I'd rather stop the run first and make a passing game beat me.  Especially against a team that runs for the kind of yardage that MUC does.  If you stack the line and blitz the crap out of the opponent and the QB and WR's make the plays to beat you, then so be it.   But  passing the ball under pressure is never a sure bet and bad things can happen on any given play.  However a dominant running game will take over a game if you let it get started by sitting back.  And anyone that has seen MUC with Kmic at TB knows that Kehres will rely on his running game if he can and therefore that has to be priority #1 defensively.

[byitisee]

Long time reader... first time poster...

I was in the press box for the Wheaton/MUC game and I would say the single biggest reason that Kmic ran rampant on the Thunder defense was the loss of Pete Ittersagen.  Pete is an All-American CB and losing him drastically affected the Thunder defense.  Pete was third on the team in tackles on the season and contributed greatly in the rush defense.  MUC ran to the side of the field that Ittersagen's backup was on the entire game.  Not to mention MUC got their first TD on a 52 yarder and the second on a 26 yarder, I believe.  Pete in the game would have been able to catch up to Kmic, being the fastest player on Wheaton's defense and possibly on the entire team.

I do have to say that Kmic has been the best D3 running back I have ever seen.  But besides him, I was not all that impressed with "big-bad" Mount Union.  They had no passing game to speak of, and that's without our #1 coverage CB as well.  Their defense was very good, relying greatly on speed and not so much size.  But the main reason they intercepted was not because of their defense as much as it was a very sub-par performance by both Wheaton QBs.

One other note regarding the QB "controversy" at Wheaton.  I would agree completely with ThunderStones and say that Ullrich is the answer next season.  If there is one knock on him though it has to be that he waits too long in the pocket.  As seen in the MUC game, where he got sacked a few times. 

[byitisee]

Also... a rumor on the Wheaton front is they will be returning their top receiver Chris Fossum for another season.  This is still just speculation but he red-shirted earlier in his career and may return next year...

That would greatly solidify the Wheaton recieving corps.  The only question marks are who will replace Tim March, and how good will Walker Smith/Andrew Hershey be in replacing Chaz Black.

[Augie6]

byitisee,

I agree that Ittersagen is a very good player, but I find it doubtful that he would have made much of a difference vs. MUC.  To make a statement that he would have caught Kmic on his longer touchdown runs can only be classified as wishful thinking and not fact.  From what I have seen and heard about Kmic, he also has very good speed.  What makes you think Ittersagen would have caught him other than to say he is fast?  As to the comment on their passing game, why would a team even try to pass if they average 9.7 yards per rush during the course of a game.  Doesn't take a genius to figure out that by running the ball like this and gaining 397 yards on the ground, you are keeping the opposing offense off the field and limiting their ability to score.  Based on this statistic, it looks like MUC was blowing Wheaton's defense off the ball the entire game.  

For your first post on this board, you come off sounding like a poor sport.  You give very little credit to MUC as a team (despite their history and a 35-3 score)and make it sound like the only reason Wheaton lost was because a player got injured and the QB's had a sub par performance.  When your two QB's combine for a 9-33 day with 5 interceptions, I would tend to give a little credit to the defense they are playing against.   We're all entitled to our opinions, but this doesn't seem to be a good way to build any credibility on this board.  

[Ric]

+Karma for Augie6.  I'm embarrassed to think a kid with that type of lack of knowledge about the game would be in the pressbox when there are so many that do not get that chance but would love to be.

[Mugsy]

+Karma for Augie6.  I'm embarrassed to think a kid with that type of lack of knowledge about the game would be in the pressbox when there are so many that do not get that chance but would love to be.

There has been way too much "if this...", "if that..." or "Mount Union really isn't that good" going on here.  Primarily from some new posters...  Just stop it.  For the 5th time since 1995, Wheaton was soundly defeated by a great team and program.  Yes, Wheaton at least gave some challenge in 2 of those games.   While some could argue a few minor points that it was closer than the score indicated, truth is the score was 35-3!  Mount won handily and it bummed me out all weekend.  You had a team rush for almost 400 yards on you.  That is putting a severe whoopin' on you.

Time to move on.  Wheaton knows it needs to continue to improve.  Everytime we go up against Mount Union we come away with a better understanding of what it takes and where we stand.  Coach Swider and staff will continue to strive to make it happen.  2006 was another great year for Wheaton, but time to set the "what if's" aside.

[Augie6]

hscoach,


I completely agree on your assessment for a defensive scheme against a balanced offense.  When I played at Augie, our approach was to shut down the run, pressure the QB and make teams try to beat us with the pass.  That philosophy served us very well.  Interestingly enough, two of the more balanced offenses we saw during my time were in the playoffs vs MUC in 85 and 86.  Both offenses were talented at the skill positions and were very effective with the pass and the run.  In both games, we focused on taking away the run and forcing the pass.  In 85, MUC gained around 100 yds on the ground (high by our standards but significantly lower than MUC's season average) and about 220 yds through the air, but threw 3 INT's which significantly impacted the game.  In 86, we completely shut down the running game with a total of 21 yds rushing and limited the passing game to 149 yards with 3 INT's.  That's the other benefit of a pressure, attacking defense, it creates a lot of turnovers.  In 86, we had 42 interceptions and 21 fumble recoveries, an average of just under 5 turnovers per game.  

The biggest problem I see in the CCIW over the past several years is, there doesn't seem to be a coach in the conference committed to play the type of defense necessary to win championships.  Until that happens, we will continue to see CCIW teams winning 1-2 games in the playoffs, but not making it out of the North region.  

[Mugsy]

Not sure what my limited opinion will add to this QB discussion as I only saw Wheaton this year against MUC.  But from doing the MUC/Wheaton game I came away thinking that "Wheaton would be a very good team if they a had a capable QB".  Neither of the QB's impressed me.  The 2 biggest passing plays in the game came on floaters down the middle of the field that I was very surprised weren't going to be intercepted as soon as the ball left the QB's hand. 

The Wheaton WR's seemed fine, the O-line played about as well as any have against the MUC defense this year and Chaz Black did more than I expected on the ground.  Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the Wheaton offense except for the QB's.

Defensively, the Wheaton front 7 got absolutely and completely dominated.  And that was with 2 of the original MUC O-line starters lost with injuries.  Couldn't get a good read on the Wheaton secondary as MUC didn't really try to attack via the passing game other than doing so enough to keep the defense somewhat honest. 

I didn't see the game but from the sounds of it the Wheaton QB's did not play upto their potential and as they did most of the time.  From the broadcast I heard, I attribute that to MUC defense.  Sounds like they were in Wheaton's backfield all day forcing Wheaton QB's into ill-advised passes.  My beef for the past 2 years is that Chupp has had a tendency to force passes into coverage, which against average talent you can get away with most of the time.  Against top CCIW teams or especially against the likes to top D3 teams like MUC, you will get burned everytime.  And they did last weekend.

Wheaton's OLine played well almost all year, with exception to the first half against NCC and most of the Augie game.  Chaz Black is one tough running back who runs really hard.  He will be missed next year.

To me the most disappointing aspect of Saturdays game was that I thought Wheaton's front 7 on defense would stack up better than another other we sent to Alliance.  They are bigger and quicker than most teams we've had.  Unfortunately the outcome last weekend doesn't support that claim at all. 

For what it's worth, Wheaton has the entire defense other than one DB returning next year.  Maybe one more year of maturity and experience will lend to a better outcome, if we can get through the CCIW schedule.

[SonsofThunder]

When you play the game of football, there will always be "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about what happens throughout the course of a single game.  For someone to speculate the coulda shoulda wouldas does no good in attempting to "dethrone" a team like Mount Union.  If Pete Ittersagen had remained in the game, would he have helped Wheaton stop the run?  Certainly, but Mount Union ran for almost 400 yds.  The thing about playing Mount Union is that they will always walk with a swagger that people will know they are the best, because until someone beats them, they are the best.  The only thing you can do is review the film, make corrections, go back to Alliance and give it another go.  I'm with Mugsy, stop the excuse making on why Wheaton lost to Mount Union.  Wheaton is, and always will be a program that strives for championships, and the coaching staff is fully aware that to win that championship, a team must take the field and beat Mt. Union.

[Mugsy]

When you play the game of football, there will always be "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about what happens throughout the course of a single game.  For someone to speculate the coulda shoulda wouldas does no good in attempting to "dethrone" a team like Mount Union.  If Pete Ittersagen had remained in the game, would he have helped Wheaton stop the run?  Certainly, but Mount Union ran for almost 400 yds.  The thing about playing Mount Union is that they will always walk with a swagger that people will know they are the best, because until someone beats them, they are the best.  The only thing you can do is review the film, make corrections, go back to Alliance and give it another go.  I'm with Mugsy, stop the excuse making on why Wheaton lost to Mount Union.  Wheaton is, and always will be a program that strives for championships, and the coaching staff is fully aware that to win that championship, a team must take the field and beat Mt. Union.

What a great first post! (and I'm not saying that because you agree with me  )  Well thought out and concisely stated.  Welcome to the board.

[Mugsy]

Congrats to Mike Guzman of Augustana and Coach JR Bishop of Wheaton (retired) as being selected to participate in the Aztec Bowl.  It is JR's 4th time representing the D3 as a coach on the team - offensive coordinator this year.

[WahooThunder]

I understand where byitisee is coming from having been there myself.  It was a frustrating loss and it was obvious that at least half of the scoring discrepancy was a result of Wheaton beating themselves.  It was also obvious that the loss of Ittersagen hurt the Thunder in run support (remember he was hurt coming up to make a tackle on Kmic for a short gain).  However, Mount Union was clearly the better team, both in terms of talent and execution and that is why they won the game.  I don't think one injury or even the poor quarterback play made enough of a difference to say that Wheaton would have won the game otherwise.  Mount Union's offensive line was too dominant and Kmic was too good, and while Mount Union's defense gave up some yardage I doubt Wheaton would have been able to convert more than one or two touchdowns even without the interceptions.  That defense was just too tough in the redzone.  As much as I also wonder what might have happened had Ittersagen not been hurt and the quarterbacks made better decisions, 32 points is a heck of a lot of ifs, should'ves and could'ves. 

[HScoach]

Long time reader... first time poster...

I was in the press box for the Wheaton/MUC game and I would say the single biggest reason that Kmic ran rampant on the Thunder defense was the loss of Pete Ittersagen.  Pete is an All-American CB and losing him drastically affected the Thunder defense.  Pete was third on the team in tackles on the season and contributed greatly in the rush defense.  MUC ran to the side of the field that Ittersagen's backup was on the entire game.  Not to mention MUC got their first TD on a 52 yarder and the second on a 26 yarder, I believe.  Pete in the game would have been able to catch up to Kmic, being the fastest player on Wheaton's defense and possibly on the entire team.

I do have to say that Kmic has been the best D3 running back I have ever seen.  But besides him, I was not all that impressed with "big-bad" Mount Union.  They had no passing game to speak of, and that's without our #1 coverage CB as well.  Their defense was very good, relying greatly on speed and not so much size.  But the main reason they intercepted was not because of their defense as much as it was a very sub-par performance by both Wheaton QBs.

One other note regarding the QB "controversy" at Wheaton.  I would agree completely with ThunderStones and say that Ullrich is the answer next season.  If there is one knock on him though it has to be that he waits too long in the pocket.  As seen in the MUC game, where he got sacked a few times. 

I find the arguement about a DB making a huge difference in the rush defense a little odd.  Yes a great DB can stop Kmic from getting 52 yds on a single run, but a single DB isn't going to stop the O-line from giving Kmic 5 yards before he's even touched.  The only difference a DB would have made is that Kmic and Company would have had more carries to get their 300+ yards.  It wouldn't have stopped the yardage total, and it wouldn't have changed the lopsided outcome. 

Your QB's not throwing balls into coverage would have made a big difference in the relative score, but still wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome.

[byitisee]

I will say first off that my first post may have been a little out of frustration despite the fact that it is a week later.  With that said I will say that MUC is a great team.  They take advantage of opponents mistakes and capitalize.  All I was trying to say was... This MUC team was beatable.  It stings to realize that if Wheaton would have played better in the QB position this game would have been much closer.  If they would have played a game like they did against Carthage (I think their best game all season) it would have been closer.  I'm not saying that Wheaton would have won... but it would have been probably 35-28 or something along that order.  I apologize for coming off as a poor sport... frustration got the best of me.