FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[DuffMan]

Good Lord!    My guess is that someone's kid is a QB.

Comment From Johnnie Grad
Any chance we see a new QB in the remaining 2 games of the seasons? Someone more entertainin to watch and maybe will have a chance at sparking a struggling offense? I think everyone would agree that Bruns and Martin are not the Lon term answer here, coach.

Comment From JohnniesFan
When do we get to see a new Quarterback who can maybe lead the offense? Instead of the same old pounding our head into the wall with someone/something that continually does NOT work.

Comment From JohnniesFan
Again Gary, you have to admit the QB play has been very poor this year. Are you telling me there is no one else at QB on your roster you are willing to give a shot to? Martin and Bruns have had chance after chance over the last 2 years - with NO success. Why will you not give someone else a chance, at least, to prove himself.

Comment From JohnniesFan
Can you at least speak as to why we have not seen anyone else this year or last given a shot to play quarterback? In other programs if a guy does not perform you put the next guy in there and give him a shot--- you don't stay with the same struggling guy, coach. On your nearly 200 man roster is there not another guy deserving of an opportunity?

[RoyalsFan]

NCAA football overtime sucks, it is nothing more than a glorified penalty shots.  The NFL's is bad enough but the NCAA is regoddamndiculous.

I'm in total agreement here...and no this isn't sour grapes from SJU's loss over the weekend. Though they are now 4-4 all-time in OT games.

In principle I don't mind each team getting an equal number of possessions from a fixed spot. My problem is with where that fixed spot starts from. By starting at the 25 yard line a team doesn't have to gain any yards to at least have a chance at a makeable FG. This was basically the case during the 2nd OT at GAC. Both teams attempted their final FG on 4th and 5 from the 20 yard line. It puts the defense in a tough spot while rewarding the offense for simply not turning it over.

I'd prefer each team start with the ball at the opponents 40 yard line. From this starting position a team would have to pick up at least one first down before feeling comfortable with a FG attempt. It would take some pressure off the defense and give OT a similar feel and flow of an actual game.

I doubt it will change. At the higher levels TV seems to enjoy the inflated scores that multiple OTs provide and for the most part I don't think fans mind the current version.

I think the current college OT is the best thing to come to football since the forward pass, at least at the d3 level where a 35+ yard FG is no gimmee for most teams.  What I would like to see is an elimination of the statistics in OT counting and the points.  I think the score should go in the books as a one point win for the team that pulls out the OT, or possibly a 2 point win if by 6 and a 1 point win if by 3 or less.

I totally disagree, it is one of the worst things to happen.  It changes the rules of the game for overtime, stupid move.  Play a shorter timed period just like basketball does (basketball overtime is the best overtime system going) play the game the way it is supposed to be played.  If they have to eliminate the kickoff in overtime, fine, place the ball in play at the opposing teams 20 yard line just like a touch back and make the teams earn the win.

I guess I don't see why you don't think a team that wins in OT has earned it. I think it is very fair since both teams get an equal opportunity to score, unlike in the pros if the team that wins the coin flip scores a td then the other team has no opportunity to get the ball. Both teams have the same chance and the team that scores more points in OT deserves (and has earned) the win. How can giving both teams the same chance be the worst thing to happen?

[desertcat1]

NCAA football overtime sucks, it is nothing more than a glorified penalty shots.  The NFL's is bad enough but the NCAA is regoddamndiculous.

I'm in total agreement here...and no this isn't sour grapes from SJU's loss over the weekend. Though they are now 4-4 all-time in OT games.

In principle I don't mind each team getting an equal number of possessions from a fixed spot. My problem is with where that fixed spot starts from. By starting at the 25 yard line a team doesn't have to gain any yards to at least have a chance at a makeable FG. This was basically the case during the 2nd OT at GAC. Both teams attempted their final FG on 4th and 5 from the 20 yard line. It puts the defense in a tough spot while rewarding the offense for simply not turning it over.

I'd prefer each team start with the ball at the opponents 40 yard line. From this starting position a team would have to pick up at least one first down before feeling comfortable with a FG attempt. It would take some pressure off the defense and give OT a similar feel and flow of an actual game.

I doubt it will change. At the higher levels TV seems to enjoy the inflated scores that multiple OTs provide and for the most part I don't think fans mind the current version.

I think the current college OT is the best thing to come to football since the forward pass, at least at the d3 level where a 35+ yard FG is no gimmee for most teams.  What I would like to see is an elimination of the statistics in OT counting and the points.  I think the score should go in the books as a one point win for the team that pulls out the OT, or possibly a 2 point win if by 6 and a 1 point win if by 3 or less.

I totally disagree, it is one of the worst things to happen.  It changes the rules of the game for overtime, stupid move.  Play a shorter timed period just like basketball does (basketball overtime is the best overtime system going) play the game the way it is supposed to be played.  If they have to eliminate the kickoff in overtime, fine, place the ball in play at the opposing teams 20 yard line just like a touch back and make the teams earn the win.

I guess I don't see why you don't think a team that wins in OT has earned it. I think it is very fair since both teams get an equal opportunity to score, unlike in the pros if the team that wins the coin flip scores a td then the other team has no opportunity to get the ball. Both teams have the same chance and the team that scores more points in OT deserves (and has earned) the win. How can giving both teams the same chance be the worst thing to happen?

[/b]

Having been there and done that the last TWO years in the playoff's  I agree .. EQUAL to BOTH teams..  One team wins on their Play on the field..     Hard pill 

[RoyalsFan]

I know this isn't a perfect solution either and still is no longer the game "as normally played" in regulation, but to eliminate the "penalty kick" feel of an overtime that turns into a FG contest (which is an analogy I've used before), I would be happy with it if they used the current system and just didn't allow FG's.  One team starts with the ball on the 25.  Score a touchdown and prevent your opponent from scoring touchdown, win the game.  Not perfect but I would be content with this.  I played three OT games in college, two decided on FG's, and while it was obviously exhilarating (won once, lost once in the FG contests, lost another that went to a third OT and was decided on a 2-point conversion) I would have been more excited if the game was decided by touchdowns.

I hear what you guys are saying, but I don' think eliminating the kicking game makes for a more 'real' ending.

I'd propose starting the teams at midfield. No one is making a FG from that distance without at least gaining a few yards. It also keeps a certain element of excitement, which we lose if we go all the way back to the 20. If you eliminate FG's entirely, it penalizes the team with a kicking advantage and seriously helps out a team with no kicker. The entire game, the FG has been a real element to which team can win. Why should it get totally struck once OT starts? Go to midfield so you don't create an advantage for the team with the kicker. But keep the FG's in so that there's no advantage for the team with a poor kicker.

I would agree with this except for the fact that they want to decide the game as quickly as possible to prevent further injuries to already exhausted players. If you put the ball at the midfield, then you are going to get a lot more cases where neither team scores and creates multiple overtimes.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Good Lord!    My guess is that someone's kid is a QB.

Comment From Johnnie Grad
Any chance we see a new QB in the remaining 2 games of the seasons? Someone more entertainin to watch and maybe will have a chance at sparking a struggling offense? I think everyone would agree that Bruns and Martin are not the Lon term answer here, coach.

Comment From JohnniesFan
When do we get to see a new Quarterback who can maybe lead the offense? Instead of the same old pounding our head into the wall with someone/something that continually does NOT work.

Comment From JohnniesFan
Again Gary, you have to admit the QB play has been very poor this year. Are you telling me there is no one else at QB on your roster you are willing to give a shot to? Martin and Bruns have had chance after chance over the last 2 years - with NO success. Why will you not give someone else a chance, at least, to prove himself.

Comment From JohnniesFan
Can you at least speak as to why we have not seen anyone else this year or last given a shot to play quarterback? In other programs if a guy does not perform you put the next guy in there and give him a shot--- you don't stay with the same struggling guy, coach. On your nearly 200 man roster is there not another guy deserving of an opportunity?

LOL.  That's pretty funny.  It is worth noting that the first comment is from a different name, but the last three from JohnniesFan are all pretty funny to read next to one another.  I'm admittedly not an SJU fan so I cannot speak to the QB situation with any expertise, but still, I'll trust the coach who is at practice every day to know which QB gives his team the best chance to win over the message-board commenter.  On a related note, I posted this in a different forum a few days ago but it's semi-relevant here as well (not a perfect analog, I am well aware).

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2013/10/canzano_blog_ex-ducks_player_t.html

As a former player, I am often disgusted by what I hear from parents in the stands at high school games, fans/parents in the stands at college games, and most friends of mine while watching NFL games.  Questioning the coaches, suggesting different plays, yelling at the players.  It ranges from "harmlessly stupid" to "downright destructive" behavior, but I can barely sit in the stands at any football game, I usually prefer to stand down in one endzone at HS/college games so I don't have to listen to that nonsense.  I know it smacks of elitism, but really, listening to people without any significant playing/coaching experience telling the coaches which plays to call or blithely yelling at the quarterback to throw the ball to the right team just grinds my gears too much.

[DuffMan]

It is worth noting that the first comment is from a different name...

Yep.  I realized that.  That's just a few excerpts that I selected.

...but I can barely sit in the stands at any football game, I usually prefer to stand down in one endzone at HS/college games so I don't have to listen to that nonsense.  I know it smacks of elitism, but really, listening to people without any significant playing/coaching experience telling the coaches which plays to call or blithely yelling at the quarterback to throw the ball to the right team just grinds my gears too much.

I'm the same way.  I listened to an old guy in front of me when SJU played UW-Eau Claire this year yell and scream "at Eau Claire" because they kept pounding the ball with their RB.  "DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE???"  Why would they do something else when they're picking up 8 yards per carry with their running back basically running the same play over and over?

[RoyalsFan]

As a former player, I am often disgusted by what I hear from parents in the stands at high school games, fans/parents in the stands at college games, and most friends of mine while watching NFL games.  Questioning the coaches, suggesting different plays, yelling at the players.  It ranges from "harmlessly stupid" to "downright destructive" behavior, but I can barely sit in the stands at any football game, I usually prefer to stand down in one endzone at HS/college games so I don't have to listen to that nonsense.  I know it smacks of elitism, but really, listening to people without any significant playing/coaching experience telling the coaches which plays to call or blithely yelling at the quarterback to throw the ball to the right team just grinds my gears too much.

I have to agree with you on this. Another aspect that I find annoying is when fans don't understand (but think they do) certain rules and will yell and swear at the refs when a call doesn't go the way they think it should. A good example of this happened at a game I was at where a pass was tipped at the line of scrimmage and a defender hit the receiver before the ball arrived. The crowd was going nuts calling for pass interference and really giving it to the refs even after the head ref announced that the ball was tipped at the line of scrimmage, which then means there is no pass interference.

[ExTartanPlayer]

It is worth noting that the first comment is from a different name...

Yep.  I realized that.  That's just a few excerpts that I selected.

...but I can barely sit in the stands at any football game, I usually prefer to stand down in one endzone at HS/college games so I don't have to listen to that nonsense.  I know it smacks of elitism, but really, listening to people without any significant playing/coaching experience telling the coaches which plays to call or blithely yelling at the quarterback to throw the ball to the right team just grinds my gears too much.

I'm the same way.  I listened to an old guy in front of me when SJU played UW-Eau Claire this year yell and scream "at Eau Claire" because they kept pounding the ball with their RB.  "DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE???"  Why would they do something else when they're picking up 8 yards per carry with their running back basically running the same play over and over?

LOL.  That's a great one, and is basically a twist on the general comment that I always seem to notice, the accusation that the offensive coordinator is calling the same plays over and over, usually coming to the surface whenever the offense gets stoned in a third-and-short or fourth-and-short situation.

First, he's not calling the same play over and over.  What looks like the same version of a fullback dive to you is one of eight different inside running plays for our fullback, all of which are run from different formations and set up using a different pre-snap motion, probing the defense for a weakness and designed to pull a specific player out of position to create a crease.  We know that you, the fan, think it's just that simple to push the other guys out of the way and gain yards, but really, it isn't.  College defenses are usually too good for that unless your OL is really just that much better than the DL, and if they are it really doesn't matter what plays you're calling.  So we have to run a motion that hints at a certain sweep or pass play and maybe forces the MLB to take a false step just before the snap, creating a small crease that our fullback can burrow into for the first down.

Second, if we ignore the previous and say that the offense is "too predictable" because "he always gives it to the fullback there" - that usually isn't true either.  You just have a selective memory and assume that's true because on THIS third-and-short he gave it to the fullback and we got stuffed.  What you don't remember is the bootleg pass play we called on the last third-and-short for a first down, or the counter we ran before that which also got stuffed because their defense caught us with the right blitz.  We called the fullback dive THIS time because we had NOT run it on third-and-short for a while.  And even if we had, which play do you like better to get us the one yard, Coach Fan?  What's your genius decision: probably something of the ilk that "we should have passed" there. Well, Coach Fan, that's not an actual play call, that's just a suggestion we should have passed instead of rushed.  How about suggesting a few patterns?  Are you sure those patterns will be open?  OK, now how should the line block?  What if the corner walks up on the edge - do we have a man to account for him?  Is the RB in the pattern or protecting?

Third, I know you think any running play lacks imagination and think we need to pass the ball more any time a run gets stuffed.  Do you realize how hard it is to find a really good quarterback with enough arm strength to make "all" the throws we need him to make?  The explosion of the passing game in the NFL has made average fans think that completing passes is easy, but it's not really as easy as Peyton Manning and Calvin Johnson-level physical specimens make it.  Take an average, semi-athletic 20-year old kid and ask him to throw a football as far as he possibly can in a straight line.  What do you think, maybe 40 yards?  Now consider that a 15-yard sideline pattern has to go about 35-40 yards in the air when you consider that the QB is 6-7 yards deep in the pocket and he has to throw it just as far sideways as he does downfield.  That's an insanely hard throw to make.

Oh, right, we should just call a slant.  Gee, I should have thought of that.  See, the problem with "just calling a slant" is that protection is that we have to figure out a way to get their DB's and LB's out of position so they don't break on our dinky little slant pattern.  So maybe we'll have to run weakside motion away from the play to convince the MLB we're actually setting up a run away from that slant pattern - but wait, what if that draws the DB's attention and walks him right into the path of our slant pattern?

(Pause)

Oh, Coach Fan, you didn't realize it was that complicated?  You just think we need to "call some different plays" once in a while?  YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

(Sorry for lapsing into different speaking tones there, but y'all get what I mean)

That's a good example, too, RoyalsFan, about people who don't understand the rules yelling at referees.  If you're going to yell at the refs, at least have the decency to know the rules yourself.

[Retired Old Rat]

Good Lord!    My guess is that someone's kid is a QB.

Comment From Johnnie Grad
Any chance we see a new QB in the remaining 2 games of the seasons? Someone more entertainin to watch and maybe will have a chance at sparking a struggling offense? I think everyone would agree that Bruns and Martin are not the Lon term answer here, coach.

Comment From JohnniesFan
When do we get to see a new Quarterback who can maybe lead the offense? Instead of the same old pounding our head into the wall with someone/something that continually does NOT work.

Comment From JohnniesFan
Again Gary, you have to admit the QB play has been very poor this year. Are you telling me there is no one else at QB on your roster you are willing to give a shot to? Martin and Bruns have had chance after chance over the last 2 years - with NO success. Why will you not give someone else a chance, at least, to prove himself.

Comment From JohnniesFan
Can you at least speak as to why we have not seen anyone else this year or last given a shot to play quarterback? In other programs if a guy does not perform you put the next guy in there and give him a shot--- you don't stay with the same struggling guy, coach. On your nearly 200 man roster is there not another guy deserving of an opportunity?

Maybe it's John advocating for the third stringer, his grandson.   

In case my little smiley faces aren't enough, I'm just kidding. 

[art76]

I'm the same way.  I listened to an old guy in front of me when SJU played UW-Eau Claire this year yell and scream "at Eau Claire" because they kept pounding the ball with their RB.  "DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE???"  Why would they do something else when they're picking up 8 yards per carry with their running back basically running the same play over and over?

It is difficult to sit in the stands and be forced to listen to diatribe being spewed out of ignorance. Most folks in the stands have no concept of field strategy. Because of television sports analysts, many are somewhat aware of time management at the end of each half. Beyond that, they have no real concept on what's going on down on the field, nuance is lost on them.

I love it when coaching staffs run certain plays at the beginning of a game so that later in the game another play which begins from the same set and looks predictable ends up not being that at all. Remember the pitch and pass that Bethel used against Gustavus? It looked like any number of bubble screens but caught the DBs encroaching and led to an easy quick six. Good teams are always running plays at the beginning of the game to set up other plays later in the game. That's why it's called strategy. The average fan just doesn't get it. They are there by in large for the game day atmosphere, the show as it were - or to support someone they know on the team.

So what are you going to do? I take the second pass I get as a season pass holder and invite other ex-football players to join me in the stands so I am guaranteed that at least one meaningful conversationalist is near me. 

[SJUrube]

Re: Gary's chat. Oh brother. I can assure you it's been a few weeks since I've participated in either Gary or Frank's chats. I may have to get back in on them to add some levity to them. It's nice of Frank to host a weekly #JohnnieSmokefest and for Gary to interact with us too. Sad that so many feel the need to attack players and coaches and push their own agenda.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Good teams are always running plays at the beginning of the game to set up other plays later in the game. That's why it's called strategy.

Agreed, love this, and acknowledge that asking the casual fan to understand this is difficult.  I don't think I really understood this until college, but once I understood our offensive game plans a little better, I realized that we always ran our first five-to-ten plays from all different formations and motion sets because the offensive coordinator needed to figure out how the opposing defense was planning to line up and figure out if they had any checks or blitz calls that we might be able to take advantage of.  Whenever I try to explain this to a friend, they just look at me and repeat whatever their first question was.  So I understand that asking the casual fan to get this is a little much.

The average fan just doesn't get it. They are there by in large for the game day atmosphere, the show as it were - or to support someone they know on the team.

Agreed, and what drives me bonkers is that, since they're ostensibly there to support the team, they should actually support the team, not tell the coach to call different plays or remind the quarterback he's supposed to throw it to the guys in purple and not white.

[OzJohnnie]

I'm not really arguing here, just observing that if the stands were only full of ex-players well versed in the subtleties of the game then there wouldn't be many people around to cheer when there's a score.

[AO]

I actually liked the play call discussion.  The questioner probably doesn't have the ability to call a better game but you can certainly ask a coach if he would call something else given another chance or where he believes the execution of the play broke down.  Maybe, just maybe, the Gustavus defense might have done something right.

[DuffMan]

Maybe, just maybe, the Gustavus defense might have done something right.

The Gustie secondary was all over.  There were not a ton of open receivers to throw to.