FB: Empire 8

[Bombers798891]

Interesting thought/question:

I don't think you can find fault with Hartwick's offense today, BUT, did it seem like they were trying to use Phelan as a decoy? 4 catches for 29 yards? That's it? I'm sure IC keyed on him defensively, but really, that's all your All-American can give you? I don't buy it. To me, it seemed like Wick just decided that they would try and make IC pay for locking on Phelan.

IC did that back in '88 in the Cortaca game with Mike Scott. It didn't work for them either

I don't think they were using Jack as a decoy.  IC keyed on him BIG TIME...and why wouldn't they.  Their second best receiver, Koreman, had a great game statistically...16 catches for 250 and 3 scores.  To me, it looked like IC dared 'Wick to go to someone besides Phelan...and 'Wick did.  What would you rather have them do, load up so Phelan gets his touches?  They were trying to win a football game.  Boltus is a pretty good QB, if there was an opportunity, I am sure he would have found it.  It just wasn't enough overall.

Hey, no-one was being critical of the offense. It just seemed to me that for him to have one catch in the opening 52 minutes seemed like more than Ithaca keying on him. To me, that almost seems like they weren't looking his way. This guy caught 73 passes for a Division leading 1,628 yards, so I would imagine that he can get open regardless of a defensive strategy that looks to stop him. Ithaca plays a lot of soft, cover 2 stuff so I would think Phelan would have gotten some chances

It is all good.  From my end, I thought the IC defense did a great job on Phelan, and that opened it up for other players...yesterday, namely Koreman.  I saw a soft cover two, with the safey shifted over to Phelan, and saw quite a few times where a linebacker seemed to shade the same side as Phelan at the snap.  I think it speaks volumes of the type of player that IC thinks Phelan is.  I am not worried about Phelan's, or anyone elses, stats.  Tough one yesterday for Jack...but if you were to tell me that after two games he would have 17 catches, for over 300 yards, and 8 TD's...I would take it everytime.  Some games, personal stats and replaced with what is best fot the team.  I would take Boltus handing off every play yesterday for a win.  It didn't happen, unfortunately, so now we get to focus on Fisher.

And no-one will be rooting for you harder than me. Haha. I kind of feel bad for that offense though. Really, when you put up 520 yards and 42 points and never lead and lose by four touchdowns, what can you do but throw up your hands?

What are the odds Boltus snaps midway through the Fisher game as the score is tied at 31 and pulls a Steve Smith on someone? Just kidding.

I do think Wick can stay with Fisher because:

1) They're on turf, which should help the offense.
2) Fisher looks like they're a little more unsettled at offense than Ithaca is.

Anyone want to explain to me though, the logic of only playing 9 games? Seems to me like you're really costing yourself a chance at an at-large bid when you only have three out of conference games (And none that look really strong)

[Yanks 99]

Interesting thought/question:

I don't think you can find fault with Hartwick's offense today, BUT, did it seem like they were trying to use Phelan as a decoy? 4 catches for 29 yards? That's it? I'm sure IC keyed on him defensively, but really, that's all your All-American can give you? I don't buy it. To me, it seemed like Wick just decided that they would try and make IC pay for locking on Phelan.

IC did that back in '88 in the Cortaca game with Mike Scott. It didn't work for them either

I don't think they were using Jack as a decoy.  IC keyed on him BIG TIME...and why wouldn't they.  Their second best receiver, Koreman, had a great game statistically...16 catches for 250 and 3 scores.  To me, it looked like IC dared 'Wick to go to someone besides Phelan...and 'Wick did.  What would you rather have them do, load up so Phelan gets his touches?  They were trying to win a football game.  Boltus is a pretty good QB, if there was an opportunity, I am sure he would have found it.  It just wasn't enough overall.

Hey, no-one was being critical of the offense. It just seemed to me that for him to have one catch in the opening 52 minutes seemed like more than Ithaca keying on him. To me, that almost seems like they weren't looking his way. This guy caught 73 passes for a Division leading 1,628 yards, so I would imagine that he can get open regardless of a defensive strategy that looks to stop him. Ithaca plays a lot of soft, cover 2 stuff so I would think Phelan would have gotten some chances

It is all good.  From my end, I thought the IC defense did a great job on Phelan, and that opened it up for other players...yesterday, namely Koreman.  I saw a soft cover two, with the safey shifted over to Phelan, and saw quite a few times where a linebacker seemed to shade the same side as Phelan at the snap.  I think it speaks volumes of the type of player that IC thinks Phelan is.  I am not worried about Phelan's, or anyone elses, stats.  Tough one yesterday for Jack...but if you were to tell me that after two games he would have 17 catches, for over 300 yards, and 8 TD's...I would take it everytime.  Some games, personal stats and replaced with what is best fot the team.  I would take Boltus handing off every play yesterday for a win.  It didn't happen, unfortunately, so now we get to focus on Fisher.

And no-one will be rooting for you harder than me. Haha. I kind of feel bad for that offense though. Really, when you put up 520 yards and 42 points and never lead and lose by four touchdowns, what can you do but throw up your hands?

What are the odds Boltus snaps midway through the Fisher game as the score is tied at 31 and pulls a Steve Smith on someone? Just kidding.

I do think Wick can stay with Fisher because:

1) They're on turf, which should help the offense.
2) Fisher looks like they're a little more unsettled at offense than Ithaca is.

Anyone want to explain to me though, the logic of only playing 9 games? Seems to me like you're really costing yourself a chance at an at-large bid when you only have three out of conference games (And none that look really strong)

One word...budget.  The Husson series was cancelled (didn't make sense to keep them on the schedule...we win, its who cares its Husson, we lose, and its how the hell did you lose to Husson).  They tried all summer to pick up a 10th game, but couldn't do it.  Once the budget is set...at least at 'Wick...I know they have had some trouble deviating from it.  I don't think it will hurt them this year.  I have been saying all summer, in order to have a shot at the post season, they need to beat IC or SJF, and really win the rest.  7-2 or 8-2 (with 9 or 10 games, with both of the losses coming to SJF and IC), and I am not sure they would get a birth in the NCAA's anyways.  I could be wrong, but you cannot count on it.

[Jonny Utah]

Interesting thought/question:

I don't think you can find fault with Hartwick's offense today, BUT, did it seem like they were trying to use Phelan as a decoy? 4 catches for 29 yards? That's it? I'm sure IC keyed on him defensively, but really, that's all your All-American can give you? I don't buy it. To me, it seemed like Wick just decided that they would try and make IC pay for locking on Phelan.

IC did that back in '88 in the Cortaca game with Mike Scott. It didn't work for them either

I don't think they were using Jack as a decoy.  IC keyed on him BIG TIME...and why wouldn't they.  Their second best receiver, Koreman, had a great game statistically...16 catches for 250 and 3 scores.  To me, it looked like IC dared 'Wick to go to someone besides Phelan...and 'Wick did.  What would you rather have them do, load up so Phelan gets his touches?  They were trying to win a football game.  Boltus is a pretty good QB, if there was an opportunity, I am sure he would have found it.  It just wasn't enough overall.

Hey, no-one was being critical of the offense. It just seemed to me that for him to have one catch in the opening 52 minutes seemed like more than Ithaca keying on him. To me, that almost seems like they weren't looking his way. This guy caught 73 passes for a Division leading 1,628 yards, so I would imagine that he can get open regardless of a defensive strategy that looks to stop him. Ithaca plays a lot of soft, cover 2 stuff so I would think Phelan would have gotten some chances

It is all good.  From my end, I thought the IC defense did a great job on Phelan, and that opened it up for other players...yesterday, namely Koreman.  I saw a soft cover two, with the safey shifted over to Phelan, and saw quite a few times where a linebacker seemed to shade the same side as Phelan at the snap.  I think it speaks volumes of the type of player that IC thinks Phelan is.  I am not worried about Phelan's, or anyone elses, stats.  Tough one yesterday for Jack...but if you were to tell me that after two games he would have 17 catches, for over 300 yards, and 8 TD's...I would take it everytime.  Some games, personal stats and replaced with what is best fot the team.  I would take Boltus handing off every play yesterday for a win.  It didn't happen, unfortunately, so now we get to focus on Fisher.

And no-one will be rooting for you harder than me. Haha. I kind of feel bad for that offense though. Really, when you put up 520 yards and 42 points and never lead and lose by four touchdowns, what can you do but throw up your hands?

What are the odds Boltus snaps midway through the Fisher game as the score is tied at 31 and pulls a Steve Smith on someone? Just kidding.

I do think Wick can stay with Fisher because:

1) They're on turf, which should help the offense.
2) Fisher looks like they're a little more unsettled at offense than Ithaca is.

Anyone want to explain to me though, the logic of only playing 9 games? Seems to me like you're really costing yourself a chance at an at-large bid when you only have three out of conference games (And none that look really strong)

The only advantages I can see of playing 9 games are the following:

- Less games mean less chance of injury
- You might have 2 games against teams where you have 2 weeks to prepare instead of 1 (this might be a disadvantage to some)
- You have a better chance of not losing the 10th game which may hurt your chances more than winning the 10th game would help them.
-You might save a few thousand bucks on a road trip (do teams lose money at home games?)

[sjfcards]

Having 9 games also allows Hartwick to have a bye week before Fisher and Ithaca. Obviously it did not work yesterday, but two weeks to prepare for the biggest games of the season seems like a nice bonus from only playing 9 games.

[redswarm81]

I guess my point is that taking points off the board is a good decision and if it doesnt work and you criticize it, it is unfair.  I can agree with the karma arguement, but you have a better chance of scoring more points and basically the same chance of kicking again, it is a good move.

Its like in baseball if your down 1 run in the bottom of the ninth with the 9th batter at the plate with a .225 average and you pinch hit for him with a .300 hitter and then that .300 hitter strikes out.  Although you don't know what would have happened if the .225 hitter was up there, it was still a good move at the time to go with the .300 hitter.

Johnny--

Absolutely. To me, you can't criticize a coach for making a good decision even if it doesn't work. From how I see it, UR's players deserve the criticism for that drive going nowhere. I think the question up for debate was, "Was taking points off the board here a good decision?" It seems to me that the posters here are divided on that

I agree with da both of youse, but I'm still curious to know what exactly caused the personal foul call against SJF, that UofR accepted in lieu of 3 points.  I don't see how it could have been a dead ball foul--such as a late hit--since dead ball fouls don't give the option of replaying the down.  Is there a special exception for personal fouls committed during scoring plays?  Was it roughing the kicker (but isn't that a separate penalty from a personal foul)?

It made plenty of sense at the time for UofR to accept the penalty and a 1st and goal from the 5.  What didn't make sense was UofR then (apparently taking a page from SJF's playbook and) committing ~14 penalties to wind up with a 4th and goal from the 25.

But does anyone know what conduct was penalized with the personal foul call?

[SJFF82]

taking points off the board is your classic case of Monday morning quarterbacking.

"My coach sucks, he's an idiot!"

Lets beat a dead horse:  That analogy is flawed.  If the 9th hitter singles in a run, the question would be, do you take that run off the board to allow the lead-off guy who perhaps is clutch with RISP to take a whack...  I doubt it, cuz  an RBI is an RBI.  This was a close game and UR's defense was playing well.  You cannot just say that, "well if we dont get the TD, we'll kick another through."  SJF had already blocked one PAT (albeit it was negated with a penalty), plus they blocked 2 kicks at MUC.  Plus D3 kickers are no Vinateries(Adam).   SJF gives up few TD's in the red zone and the chances could have not been that good that UR punches one in anyway.  Even a shorter kick is risky against SJF specs.  i think it was Bombers that correctly said it is substantially a situational call...and in this situation...for all of the foregoing reasons  (plus it didnt work  ) it was the wrong call...so UR gets to eat at least one more Courage Bowl luncheon at Cleary Aud in Kearney Hall...But Foster does suck and he is an idiot...he cost SJF the Del Val  play-off game in '04, in similiar style to the IC OT loss in 2005.  Had QB (was it Nick S.?) throwing a telegraphed out route with a bit over a minute to go and the lead and Del Val had no timeouts???  It got picked and Del Val scored for the second time in the last 4 mins.

He doesnt suck and he's certainly not an idiot.  I didnt agree with alot of what he did at SJF, but he brought stability to the offense for the most part.  He calls a good game except for 1/2 boneheaded calls a game that just seem to be the difference in tight games. 

The IC game in 2005, the bubble was killing the bombers and if you watch the replay Sooch was going to the inside guy at first on that play.  He double clutched it and threw a floater to Noah.  It was a good call just bad execution.

I guess my point is that taking points off the board is a good decision and if it doesnt work and you criticize it, it is unfair.  I can agree with the karma arguement, but you have a better chance of scoring more points and basically the same chance of kicking again, it is a good move.

Its like in baseball if your down 1 run in the bottom of the ninth with the 9th batter at the plate with a .225 average and you pinch hit for him with a .300 hitter and then that .300 hitter strikes out.  Although you don't know what would have happened if the .225 hitter was up there, it was still a good move at the time to go with the .300 hitter.

[SJFF82]

sorry i screwed up that last post...the bolded portion is my intended reply

[Jonny Utah]

sorry i screwed up that last post...the bolded portion is my intended reply

Lets beat a dead horse:  That analogy is flawed.  If the 9th hitter singles in a run, the question would be, do you take that run off the board to allow the lead-off guy who perhaps is clutch with RISP to take a whack...  I doubt it, cuz  an RBI is an RBI.  This was a close game and UR's defense was playing well.  You cannot just say that, "well if we dont get the TD, we'll kick another through."  SJF had already blocked one PAT (albeit it was negated with a penalty), plus they blocked 2 kicks at MUC.  Plus D3 kickers are no Vinateries(Adam).   SJF gives up few TD's in the red zone and the chances could have not been that good that UR punches one in anyway.  Even a shorter kick is risky against SJF specs.  i think it was Bombers that correctly said it is substantially a situational call...and in this situation...for all of the foregoing reasons  (plus it didnt work  ) it was the wrong call...so UR gets to eat at least one more Courage Bowl luncheon at Cleary Aud in Kearney Hall...But Foster does suck and he is an idiot...he cost SJF the Del Val  play-off game in '04, in similiar style to the IC OT loss in 2005.  Had QB (was it Nick S.?) throwing a telegraphed out route with a bit over a minute to go and the lead and Del Val had no timeouts???  It got picked and Del Val scored for the second time in the last 4 mins.

Yea but you get the point.  You could add the fact that maybe the 9th hitter is a righty that bats .700 against the lefty pitcher that is in the game and the pinch hitter is a lefty that bats .095 against the same guy.

My point is that in that point of the game its unfair to look back and say they made a bad decision.

[SJFF82]

sorry i screwed up that last post...the bolded portion is my intended reply

Lets beat a dead horse:  That analogy is flawed.  If the 9th hitter singles in a run, the question would be, do you take that run off the board to allow the lead-off guy who perhaps is clutch with RISP to take a whack...  I doubt it, cuz  an RBI is an RBI.  This was a close game and UR's defense was playing well.  You cannot just say that, "well if we dont get the TD, we'll kick another through."  SJF had already blocked one PAT (albeit it was negated with a penalty), plus they blocked 2 kicks at MUC.  Plus D3 kickers are no Vinateries(Adam).   SJF gives up few TD's in the red zone and the chances could have not been that good that UR punches one in anyway.  Even a shorter kick is risky against SJF specs.  i think it was Bombers that correctly said it is substantially a situational call...and in this situation...for all of the foregoing reasons  (plus it didnt work  ) it was the wrong call...so UR gets to eat at least one more Courage Bowl luncheon at Cleary Aud in Kearney Hall...But Foster does suck and he is an idiot...he cost SJF the Del Val  play-off game in '04, in similiar style to the IC OT loss in 2005.  Had QB (was it Nick S.?) throwing a telegraphed out route with a bit over a minute to go and the lead and Del Val had no timeouts???  It got picked and Del Val scored for the second time in the last 4 mins.

Yea but you get the point.  You could add the fact that maybe the 9th hitter is a righty that bats .700 against the lefty pitcher that is in the game and the pinch hitter is a lefty that bats .095 against the same guy.

My point is that in that point of the game its unfair to look back and say they made a bad decision.

you're right...i do get the point.  I just disagree.  You ask Greene and his staff and I assure you that they would admit that that call was a "in the heat of the moment" call and that had they weighed the factors I laid out : SJF's ability to block kicks, red zone effectiveness against SJF...etc, they would do it different the next time (not knowing the outcome of course).

[Jonny Utah]

Pats and Bills stinking it up against 2 crappy teams right now.....

[theoriginalupstate]

Bills still in it, lets see if Trent can work his magic again...

But regardless, they are stinking it up...

[theoriginalupstate]

Well if thats not a way to cap a weekend I dont know what is...

Buffalo had no business winning this game, Trent Edwards is the next Jim Kelly!!

[saxondeuce]

Well if thats not a way to cap a weekend I dont know what is...

Buffalo had no business winning this game, Trent Edwards is the next Jim Kelly!!

didn't get to see it again....but a win is a win...lets go buffalo!! and new england gets donkey punched by the dolphins?? wow

[theoriginalupstate]

Well if thats not a way to cap a weekend I dont know what is...

Buffalo had no business winning this game, Trent Edwards is the next Jim Kelly!!

didn't get to see it again....but a win is a win...lets go buffalo!! and new england gets donkey punched by the dolphins?? wow

When you getting back in Deuce?  The KS crew is going to plan a cookout. 

[superman57]

not quite football, but the Ryder Cup is getting good, and since Superman did not get the bills game today... he settled in for some golf...