FB: Empire 8

[pumkinattack]

The real key will be Benkwitt's ability to move.  I'm sure UC has a good OL, but he won't have much time to sit in normal droback situations and throws will need to be made off a 3 second count, not 5.  Ironically, Geneva College whom had 700yds of offense the week before, did better after Bart knocked out their starting QB and they brought the 2nd team guy in who was more of a scrambler.  They didn't threaten to score until the bench was cleared in teh 4th, but their O actually performed bettter.  The DT's aren't huge this year, but stronger than you might think for their size and the DE's are a little bigger than they've been many years in the past to compensate.

[Jonny Utah]

Not trying to play the Rodney Dangerfield no respect card, but you vastly understate the case when stating things like this weekend will be a test or a good measure (not one poster, I've seen a few posts with similar comments completely aware that it's likely unintentional - I'm just very excited for this Hobart team like no other since I've been involved with the program).  This Hobart defense is the best I've ever seen since playing for them in the late 90's into 2000's and followed closely since.  I played with Dave Russell, Tim Booth, Eric Newsome and Rob Gould and saw the Aruck, Hager, Sanders combo many times in person and can tell you that this front eight is the best Coach Cragg has ever had and I believe this defense has the team speed to stop the best offenses in the entire country.   

Now, Hobart's offense has played horribly to date despite having a number of tremendous playmakers (a FR 3rd or 4th string RB is the only guy to have a play north of 30+ yards notwithstanding having guys like Webb, Woodard, Dougherty, etc.).  They've also been really sloppy w/penalties (the stat sheet will show a number of personal fouls, but really it was the retailation guy gets called situation as Geneva was illegally chop blocking like they were trained to do so and the Statesmen didn't turn the other cheek).  That's where you'll find the weakness if Cragg doesn't get them prepared for Saturday. 

My point is simply that while the LL has been down since 2008 (IMO the last solid year for the league overall), this Hobart team is worthy of where they're ranked so far and if Utica does win it'll be far more than a good test.  It'll be a precursor to a Utica team that should have a very, very good shot at winning the E8 this year.  I'm really excited for this Hobart team this season, but nervous as hell mainly because they've won their league and/or made the playoffs eight (8) times since the 2000 season yet always lost a game, sometimes in befuddling ways or to teams they shouldn't have lost to (often the 3rd to 5th best team on their schedule including 2000, 2002, 2004 & 2008, can live with the losses in 04, 05 & 07).

Utica looks hot to start the year.  They'll have a ton of momentum going into a 7pm game under the lights.  I wish them good luck all year, but not too much this weekend.

Maybe before your time pumkin, but the 1993 Hobart defense was one of the best in the country that year, and probably one of the top 10 defenses in the last 30 years in the east.

[fisheralum91]

My point is simply that while the LL has been down since 2008 (IMO the last solid year for the league overall), this Hobart team is worthy of where they're ranked so far and if Utica does win it'll be far more than a good test.  It'll be a precursor to a Utica team that should have a very, very good shot at winning the E8 this year. 

Pumpkin, I do agree, but with all due respect, UC still has to deal with Fisher and the defending E8champ Sals. U.
Getting a win at Hobart is a great win,one frankly that i dont think will happen, but i dont think is a precursor to winning the E8.
In saying that, I see that UC has a heavily Senior laden team.. This is a chance for Blaise to get some nice victories but an E8 championship...I dont think so.

[pumkinattack]

Utes, Couple of years before my time, but not by much.  Bill Maxwell started what Cragg is building for sure.  Still, if you have a chance to see this D, perhaps in Worcester on 9/29 - I'd highly recommend you check them out. 

FA91, I said very, very good shot - not that they'd win.  What I'm saying is that Hobart is right there with SJF and Sals.  This team is better than last years and while we had this bitchfest in the end of the year about how SJF was improved, while Bart slipped up, I'd still point to that game along with the very shorthanded and beat up 7pt road loss to Wesley as pretty good datapoints.  Bart lost a very good WR (Muratori) and an excellent DB (Woodard) as the key losses (along with a veteran OL, but what many don't realize is that they rotated 12 guys on the OL all of last year, so the backups all had a ton of snaps under their belt and are still very talented), but basically returned everyone else of note and is healthier. 

This isn't meant to start some debate about how awesome the E8 is and how everyone in the LL is chumps, but all signs and data support the idea that this Hobart team should be considered 1C in the East if you consider SJF & Sals (in whatever order) as 1A and 1B.  It's still very early in the season and we could all be wrong in our predictions by a long shot still, but I'm backing up the truck on this Hobart team's stock the way Bernanke is about to with asset purchases starting tomorrow. 

[fisheralum91]

Pumpkin,
I agree that Hobart was a solid team last year- One that I picked to go much farther than they did.
If this years team is up to that par- then you have a really solid squad.
Should make for some interesting games late in November!

[SJFF82]

To dlip, Utica's offensive output could have been doubled if they didn't take their foot off the gas.

I'd disagree with this part.  When up by 45-17 late in the 4th, all first-team offense remained in the game for Utica.  There were some odd calls being made coaching-wise on that sideline all night that still confound me, including a re-kick after an out-of-bounds kickoff that exited the boundary at the 2 (that automatically would have gone to the 40 -- and the rekick led to a lost fumble to Union).  Accepting a 5-yard penalty on an incomplete 1st and 10 pass when the opponent is in obvious 4-down territory (1st and 15 instead of 2nd and 10 around the Utica 35) was yet another, "Huh?" moment.

Anyway, there was no reason for the first-team offense to be in the game past the first drive of the 4th quarter, with Utica up by 25.  They have an excellent team (it might have been good to give some experience to the second teamers while they had a chance to do so), and Union never has embarrassed Utica like other teams had to warrant some sort of "message."  Maybe the mouthing off before the Union/SJF playoff game in 2006 somehow made Blaise a Union-hater -- but it doesn't warrant risking your top players to injury unnecessarily, especially in Week 2.

Frank, not sure how much time you mean by "past 1st drive of 4th" and there is a differnce between being up by 25 and being up 45-17, but SJF was up by 4 tds against UR a few years  ago AT HOME in the 4th and the game literally came down to the UR QB simply under-handing a toss into a wide open receiver's arms in the endzone for a game tying 2pt conversion with seconds left and he somehow underthrew it and it bounced and SJF luckily survived, so who's to say when a lead is safe at this level....

I think I focused on the first-team offense in my post more than the defense.  However, there's a time to pull players on both sides of the ball.  Also, the UR/SJF game (Courage Bowl rivalry game) occurred before the timing rules changed.  It's not as likely now for even that anomaly.

Fisher was up by three possessions in that game, not four. That's a major difference, more so than the clock rules (although that helps too.

Regardless, I'd also say that "Worst-Case scenario" anecdotes rarely make for good general policy. I understand the concept that coaches live by a different set of rules, and that one "worst-case" scenario can be their undoing. But I think coaches still wait too long to ease up

yes, you are correct, they were up 22 with 10:33 to go and by :48 to go it was all but tied, save the errant pass to the wide open receiver.  UR scored 20 unanswered in less than 10 minutes?  So could they, would they have scored 28 unanswered in another 3 minutes?  Certainly looks like it?  If it can happen, you must coach against it, lest it will happen to you.  This isnt the playground or the Pinewood Derby.  There is a time to call off the dogs and rest the starters, its called Sunday....

Simply because this isn't the pinewood derby or the playground is no reason not to show your opponents' respect. I remember the first time Ithaca played Utica. It was 35-0 in the first quarter, and only then because IC had a punt return TD called back. Ithaca could have won that game by 125 points had they felt like it, and that's not hyperbole. According to the recap of the game by the Ithacan, Ithaca emptied its entire bench. Starting quarterback Brian Young threw, according to the Syracuse paper, five passes the entire game. (I thought it was eight, but I'll trust the paper to my memory)

Had Ithaca subscribed to your "Let up on Sunday" theory, that game would have been a mockery. How many games would Mount win by 100 points if it didn't empty its bench and call off the dogs? There's a reason you see them winning games 52-0, 62-0, 48-3 and going scoreless in the 4th quarter.

That was my point...you have to have a feel for the game and the teams on the field.  This started with Utica letting up on Union.  This is NOT MUC who loses to noone except UWW in the past 15 years let alone nobody is going to mount (pun intended) a comeback ag. them.  Utica, is not MUC and UC was not up 60 or 50 or 40 to O.  They were playing a traditionally good to better thaan good team with an excellent football pedigree.  It's UC for Pete's sake with the lead, not UWW or Wesley.  In 7 weeks we will be talking about how UC is 3-6 so therefore I do not think they should 'let-up' in any 4th quarter. 

[SJFF82]

Not trying to play the Rodney Dangerfield no respect card, but you vastly understate the case when stating things like this weekend will be a test or a good measure (not one poster, I've seen a few posts with similar comments completely aware that it's likely unintentional - I'm just very excited for this Hobart team like no other since I've been involved with the program).  This Hobart defense is the best I've ever seen since playing for them in the late 90's into 2000's and followed closely since.  I played with Dave Russell, Tim Booth, Eric Newsome and Rob Gould and saw the Aruck, Hager, Sanders combo many times in person and can tell you that this front eight is the best Coach Cragg has ever had and I believe this defense has the team speed to stop the best offenses in the entire country.   

Now, Hobart's offense has played horribly to date despite having a number of tremendous playmakers (a FR 3rd or 4th string RB is the only guy to have a play north of 30+ yards notwithstanding having guys like Webb, Woodard, Dougherty, etc.).  They've also been really sloppy w/penalties (the stat sheet will show a number of personal fouls, but really it was the retailation guy gets called situation as Geneva was illegally chop blocking like they were trained to do so and the Statesmen didn't turn the other cheek).  That's where you'll find the weakness if Cragg doesn't get them prepared for Saturday. 

My point is simply that while the LL has been down since 2008 (IMO the last solid year for the league overall), this Hobart team is worthy of where they're ranked so far and if Utica does win it'll be far more than a good test.  It'll be a precursor to a Utica team that should have a very, very good shot at winning the E8 this year.  I'm really excited for this Hobart team this season, but nervous as hell mainly because they've won their league and/or made the playoffs eight (8) times since the 2000 season yet always lost a game, sometimes in befuddling ways or to teams they shouldn't have lost to (often the 3rd to 5th best team on their schedule including 2000, 2002, 2004 & 2008, can live with the losses in 04, 05 & 07).

Utica looks hot to start the year.  They'll have a ton of momentum going into a 7pm game under the lights.  I wish them good luck all year, but not too much this weekend.

Maybe before your time pumkin, but the 1993 Hobart defense was one of the best in the country that year, and probably one of the top 10 defenses in the last 30 years in the east.

played ag. it...we lost 7-3 or 10-3 as I recall...it was quite solid.

[Pat Coleman]

Speaking of Benkwitt and Utica, they are the subject of the new Around the East column.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/east/2012/dressed-for-success

[Bombers798891]

That was my point...you have to have a feel for the game and the teams on the field.  This started with Utica letting up on Union.  This is NOT MUC who loses to noone except UWW in the past 15 years let alone nobody is going to mount (pun intended) a comeback ag. them.  Utica, is not MUC and UC was not up 60 or 50 or 40 to O.  They were playing a traditionally good to better thaan good team with an excellent football pedigree.  It's UC for Pete's sake with the lead, not UWW or Wesley.  In 7 weeks we will be talking about how UC is 3-6 so therefore I do not think they should 'let-up' in any 4th quarter.

I agree with you to a point, but again, this isn't the first time we've seen Utica do this, and they've done it against some pretty awful teams. Take this line from the 2009 recap of the Becker game:

"Senior wide receiver Cody Elliot (Sloan, NY), a team captain, snagged six balls for 115 yards and one touchdown. His touchdown came by way of an 18 yard strike on a post route from Benkwitt to give the Pioneers a commanding 50-0 lead at the 8:50 mark of the third quarter."

That's what bugs me about Utica. I don't think they're doing it because they think a team's going to come back on them. I think they're aiming to post lopsided scores because they think it sends a message, precisely because, as you point out, they know they're going to be losing later. They've done it to bad teams, but this was their first chance to do so against a name program. So they did. But honestly, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (As it does when any team, Ithaca included, does it.) And I think Utica does it more than most teams.

[fisheralum91]

I think that as bombers has pointed out, Blaise has historically kept the pedal down.
This mentality probably started when he was starting a ton of freshman and knew they needed confidence.
I wonder what he is thinking these days.

[SJFF82]

That was my point...you have to have a feel for the game and the teams on the field.  This started with Utica letting up on Union.  This is NOT MUC who loses to noone except UWW in the past 15 years let alone nobody is going to mount (pun intended) a comeback ag. them.  Utica, is not MUC and UC was not up 60 or 50 or 40 to O.  They were playing a traditionally good to better thaan good team with an excellent football pedigree.  It's UC for Pete's sake with the lead, not UWW or Wesley.  In 7 weeks we will be talking about how UC is 3-6 so therefore I do not think they should 'let-up' in any 4th quarter.

I agree with you to a point, but again, this isn't the first time we've seen Utica do this, and they've done it against some pretty awful teams. Take this line from the 2009 recap of the Becker game:

"Senior wide receiver Cody Elliot (Sloan, NY), a team captain, snagged six balls for 115 yards and one touchdown. His touchdown came by way of an 18 yard strike on a post route from Benkwitt to give the Pioneers a commanding 50-0 lead at the 8:50 mark of the third quarter."

That's what bugs me about Utica. I don't think they're doing it because they think a team's going to come back on them. I think they're aiming to post lopsided scores because they think it sends a message, precisely because, as you point out, they know they're going to be losing later. They've done it to bad teams, but this was their first chance to do so against a name program. So they did. But honestly, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (As it does when any team, Ithaca included, does it.) And I think Utica does it more than most teams.

ok, but now we you are getting into the third quarter of games?  I mean at some point, what is a football game if you cannot play past a certain score or quarter?  Think about guys who are playing in their Senior season and do not have the liklihood of making the playoffs....games are numbered and precious.  Playing time is precious for these kids....I remember.  When I played my last game senior year against Thiel, I actually remember thinking at the half when we were up 33-14 (or something like that) 'man I hope we dont completely blow these guys out in the third and Coach Vos pulls all us starters'  It was my last game, and I wanted to play, not to embarass Theil...

Is Utica going playoffs?  Prob not, but certainly if it comes down to it, some flashy scores could certainly carry the day.

In some sense I find it hard to believe we are even having a discussion about a team that regularly finishes below .500 running up the score....

[Jonny Utah]

That was my point...you have to have a feel for the game and the teams on the field.  This started with Utica letting up on Union.  This is NOT MUC who loses to noone except UWW in the past 15 years let alone nobody is going to mount (pun intended) a comeback ag. them.  Utica, is not MUC and UC was not up 60 or 50 or 40 to O.  They were playing a traditionally good to better thaan good team with an excellent football pedigree.  It's UC for Pete's sake with the lead, not UWW or Wesley.  In 7 weeks we will be talking about how UC is 3-6 so therefore I do not think they should 'let-up' in any 4th quarter.

I agree with you to a point, but again, this isn't the first time we've seen Utica do this, and they've done it against some pretty awful teams. Take this line from the 2009 recap of the Becker game:

"Senior wide receiver Cody Elliot (Sloan, NY), a team captain, snagged six balls for 115 yards and one touchdown. His touchdown came by way of an 18 yard strike on a post route from Benkwitt to give the Pioneers a commanding 50-0 lead at the 8:50 mark of the third quarter."

That's what bugs me about Utica. I don't think they're doing it because they think a team's going to come back on them. I think they're aiming to post lopsided scores because they think it sends a message, precisely because, as you point out, they know they're going to be losing later. They've done it to bad teams, but this was their first chance to do so against a name program. So they did. But honestly, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (As it does when any team, Ithaca included, does it.) And I think Utica does it more than most teams.

ok, but now we you are getting into the third quarter of games?  I mean at some point, what is a football game if you cannot play past a certain score or quarter?  Think about guys who are playing in their Senior season and do not have the liklihood of making the playoffs....games are numbered and precious.  Playing time is precious for these kids....I remember.  When I played my last game senior year against Thiel, I actually remember thinking at the half when we were up 33-14 (or something like that) 'man I hope we dont completely blow these guys out in the third and Coach Vos pulls all us starters'  It was my last game, and I wanted to play, not to embarass Theil...

Is Utica going playoffs?  Prob not, but certainly if it comes down to it, some flashy scores could certainly carry the day.

In some sense I find it hard to believe we are even having a discussion about a team that regularly finishes below .500 running up the score....

Interesting topic, and as a HS coach I go through it all the time.

My feeling is that the team that is getting blown out needs to first put in their 2nd team, and then the winning team can start to sub in their backups.  I say this because I have been in games on the winning side of a blowout early.  Last year we were up 28-0 at the end of the 1st quarter, and then 35-0 early in the 2nd.  So we put in our entire 2nd team, but the other team left in their starters.  Guess what happened?  It is now 35-14 with still a good amount of time in the 2nd quarter.  We still weren't worried, but we had to put our starters deep into the third in a game where many younger players on both sides could have had a great experience playing in a varsity game.

Now the 3rd and 4th quarters are different than the situation I was in, but I hate giving up points to a team that is getting blown out but still chooses to leave their starters in.  I understand that if you are on the losing end that you might not want the scores to look bad, and that you want to at least build something on offense or defense, but you also don't want your starters to get hurt either.

That's my opinion anyway.  Did Union keep their starters in the 4th?

[Bombers798891]

ok, but now we you are getting into the third quarter of games?  I mean at some point, what is a football game if you cannot play past a certain score or quarter?  Think about guys who are playing in their Senior season and do not have the liklihood of making the playoffs....games are numbered and precious.  Playing time is precious for these kids....I remember.  When I played my last game senior year against Thiel, I actually remember thinking at the half when we were up 33-14 (or something like that) 'man I hope we dont completely blow these guys out in the third and Coach Vos pulls all us starters'  It was my last game, and I wanted to play, not to embarass Theil...

Is Utica going playoffs?  Prob not, but certainly if it comes down to it, some flashy scores could certainly carry the day.

In some sense I find it hard to believe we are even having a discussion about a team that regularly finishes below .500 running up the score....

Yup. Third quarter. And even earlier in some cases. The first IC/Utica game ever played, I don't think Brian Young (A senior FWIW) played after the first quarter. It was 35-0 at the time.

I understand your point about wanting to play, (well, as much as a non-athlete can) and I don't think the players want to embarrass anyone. But, in certain matchups, you either pull up or win by 100 points. Who really benefits in that situation? Specifically, the Union/Utica game isn't on that level. Jonny's point about following what the losing team is doing is interesting however. I think it's almost like a mutual de-escalation.

Did you catch where Florida State and Savannah went to a running clock in the third quarter? I don't think that was entirely weather-related

[SJFF82]

That was my point...you have to have a feel for the game and the teams on the field.  This started with Utica letting up on Union.  This is NOT MUC who loses to noone except UWW in the past 15 years let alone nobody is going to mount (pun intended) a comeback ag. them.  Utica, is not MUC and UC was not up 60 or 50 or 40 to O.  They were playing a traditionally good to better thaan good team with an excellent football pedigree.  It's UC for Pete's sake with the lead, not UWW or Wesley.  In 7 weeks we will be talking about how UC is 3-6 so therefore I do not think they should 'let-up' in any 4th quarter.

I agree with you to a point, but again, this isn't the first time we've seen Utica do this, and they've done it against some pretty awful teams. Take this line from the 2009 recap of the Becker game:

"Senior wide receiver Cody Elliot (Sloan, NY), a team captain, snagged six balls for 115 yards and one touchdown. His touchdown came by way of an 18 yard strike on a post route from Benkwitt to give the Pioneers a commanding 50-0 lead at the 8:50 mark of the third quarter."

That's what bugs me about Utica. I don't think they're doing it because they think a team's going to come back on them. I think they're aiming to post lopsided scores because they think it sends a message, precisely because, as you point out, they know they're going to be losing later. They've done it to bad teams, but this was their first chance to do so against a name program. So they did. But honestly, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (As it does when any team, Ithaca included, does it.) And I think Utica does it more than most teams.

ok, but now we you are getting into the third quarter of games?  I mean at some point, what is a football game if you cannot play past a certain score or quarter?  Think about guys who are playing in their Senior season and do not have the liklihood of making the playoffs....games are numbered and precious.  Playing time is precious for these kids....I remember.  When I played my last game senior year against Thiel, I actually remember thinking at the half when we were up 33-14 (or something like that) 'man I hope we dont completely blow these guys out in the third and Coach Vos pulls all us starters'  It was my last game, and I wanted to play, not to embarass Theil...

Is Utica going playoffs?  Prob not, but certainly if it comes down to it, some flashy scores could certainly carry the day.

In some sense I find it hard to believe we are even having a discussion about a team that regularly finishes below .500 running up the score....

Interesting topic, and as a HS coach I go through it all the time.

My feeling is that the team that is getting blown out needs to first put in their 2nd team, and then the winning team can start to sub in their backups.  I say this because I have been in games on the winning side of a blowout early.  Last year we were up 28-0 at the end of the 1st quarter, and then 35-0 early in the 2nd.  So we put in our entire 2nd team, but the other team left in their starters.  Guess what happened?  It is now 35-14 with still a good amount of time in the 2nd quarter.  We still weren't worried, but we had to put our starters deep into the third in a game where many younger players on both sides could have had a great experience playing in a varsity game.

Now the 3rd and 4th quarters are different than the situation I was in, but I hate giving up points to a team that is getting blown out but still chooses to leave their starters in.  I understand that if you are on the losing end that you might not want the scores to look bad, and that you want to at least build something on offense or defense, but you also don't want your starters to get hurt either.

That's my opinion anyway.  Did Union keep their starters in the 4th?

good point....burden to 'surrender' should be on the losing team not on the winning team to 'back-off'

[SJFF82]

ok, but now we you are getting into the third quarter of games?  I mean at some point, what is a football game if you cannot play past a certain score or quarter?  Think about guys who are playing in their Senior season and do not have the liklihood of making the playoffs....games are numbered and precious.  Playing time is precious for these kids....I remember.  When I played my last game senior year against Thiel, I actually remember thinking at the half when we were up 33-14 (or something like that) 'man I hope we dont completely blow these guys out in the third and Coach Vos pulls all us starters'  It was my last game, and I wanted to play, not to embarass Theil...

Is Utica going playoffs?  Prob not, but certainly if it comes down to it, some flashy scores could certainly carry the day.

In some sense I find it hard to believe we are even having a discussion about a team that regularly finishes below .500 running up the score....

Yup. Third quarter. And even earlier in some cases. The first IC/Utica game ever played, I don't think Brian Young (A senior FWIW) played after the first quarter. It was 35-0 at the time.

I understand your point about wanting to play, (well, as much as a non-athlete can) and I don't think the players want to embarrass anyone. But, in certain matchups, you either pull up or win by 100 points. Who really benefits in that situation? Specifically, the Union/Utica game isn't on that level. Jonny's point about following what the losing team is doing is interesting however. I think it's almost like a mutual de-escalation.

Did you catch where Florida State and Savannah went to a running clock in the third quarter? I don't think that was entirely weather-related

a certain player may come out early in a blow-out game for injury saving reasons though, like a young QB.  Again, kinda goes to my point of a game by game, team by team analysis, rather than just blanketly calling out a coaching staff of a team that isnt a winning program for running up the score on a traditional 'player' in the East.  Boy I remember when SJF got a crack to blow out Cortland in ECAC game a few years back.  The last time the teams met (1991), the score ended up in Sports Illustrated due to Cortland winning 71-0.  If SJF had been able to keep up the assault they were laying on Cortland early in the third of that game, you wouldnt heard me 'crying' for mercy...as it was, Cortland was able to get some late scores and make it look much closer.  But could an up and coming Fisher program with no winning tradition really be faulted for stepping on the throats of Cortland a pretty storied and powerful program?  I do agree their is a point where if its like 45-0 with a minute to go and you are on the goal-line, you take a knee, but to just stop throwing the ball and things like that sometime late in the 3rd of a 30pt game, does no-one any good.  Does that help the 3rd stringers of the losing team?  No, trust me those guys want to play defense too....its their only crack at the field and they dont just wanna see scrub plays, they see that all week in practice...