It could've definitely been harder, if Wisconsin, Virginia Tech and Michigan State weren't down.
Kirk Kirk Kirk
- Thread starter ImBadRU
- Start date
Gavin might not need to be the MVP but his play must earn the opposing teams respect and be a major part of the offense for RU to beat the best of the B1G
I see what you're saying and agree , the RU QB must be part of the game and not used sparingly , even when behind.
Wisc wasn't down when we played them...they fell after losing their starting QB.
MST sucked last year too.
Iowa is better this year than last VaTech is better than BC was last year.
What I am talking about is anyone sating - this was an easier schedule...There is no proof of that
The Game Plan is boring. But it is being used to give our team the best chance of winning. Similiar to what Pike has done to develop his program. Play good defense and get into a rock fight.
I will say that I thought Gavin should have had a chance to throw more on first and second down as he was throwing with good accuracy. The staff is always afraid to do that due to how quickly Gavin loses his accuracy.
How creative and aggressive can you be if you don't have the horses?
boring isnt the word. futile is. it’s clearly not working so try something else.
maybe allow our guys to return a punt for once. do we practice fair catch signals in practice but not punt returns ? am being serious.
you can take a few deep shots a game, with or without play action. if they pick them off, so what. you were going to punt anyway. pressure the D. make them make plays.
Schiano’s comment that basically if you try to be balanced running and throwing you won’t be good at either is very troubling. Being one dimensional is a recipe for certain failure against good teams. it makes no sense for the playbook to be limited to 15 yard from the LOS. Vedral isnt the QB anymore.This QB can stretch the field so why not try ? Do something different. nothing to lose.
Last edited:
Sure…
NW- Fired their coach a week before our game while the entire program was in the midst of turmoil
Temple/Wagner- please
VT- perhaps our most impressive win of the season and in the midst of a downward spiral. They just lost in Blacksburg to NC state on Saturday for the first time in 19 years and are fighting for bowl eligibility this week
Indiana- 1-7 in conference and widely regarded as the ‘punching bag’ of the big ten this year
MSU- fired their coach the previous week, are 4-7 on the season and it took a series of incredible PURE LUCK in order to beat them.
In conclusion the combined record
So when we beat these teams, it’s because it’s a down year for them. But when we lose to these same teams for the last 10 years, year over year, it’s because we suck.
Got it. I should never be happy with the team then.
Got it. I should never be happy with the team then.
I half-agree with this. You can’t say we were lucky because we had a few weak teams on the schedule. There will always be weak teams on the schedule which lose more than they win. It’s the nature of the schedule every year.
We’re right on the edge. In between strong and weak.. I think there’s validity in the argument though that this year is an anomaly with two opponents in turmoil and one of them made 2 critical late game blunders that basically gifted us the opportunity to win.
So, I think our 6 or 7 win context this particular year is misleading. We can’t score TDs at all against the better teams (all other B10 teams can, even the weak ones). So on balance I think we are a weak team this year that due to lucky circumstances will get to a bowl. In other years we might be closer to strong with the same record.
So, while these are not false- MSU sucked last year too. - so a net even
VaTech is better this year than BC was last year. - so, harder in 23
Wagner/Temple- well- they both sucked and were on our schedule last year too - net even
2023 Iowa, Wisc at 4-1 and their starting QB, NW - harder in 23 than 2022 Iowa, Neb, Minn
2023 - played 1/2/11/20
Indiana sucked both years- net even
When good coaches talk about balance, it's not about running and passing in an equal ratio. It's about being good enough at both so that opposing defenses can't key on one or the other. What we've seen in the last few games against good teams is the result of having no passing threat whatsoever. I don't know how they expected to win any of these games without a functional passing game. You can beat the likes of Temple playing like that. You won't come close to beating anyone better.
I do have to say that Kirk is the one coach that I have some question about. Either he is letting GS interfere or he has put some restrictions on GW. But it seems that "in-game" the opposing defensive coaches are out coaching our offensive coaches.
Obviously balance doesn't mean 50/50. You do need to play to your strengths as much as you can, yet also being as unpredictable as possible within your philosophy.
But Schiano's quote says more than that. He says you can't been good at both passing and running (ie practice time or talent edge?) so he's made this almost a run-only team, even on third and long. His view is a huge concern. You very much can be an effective passing team even as a secondary emphasis by having variety in your passing game and using the whole field. It's basic.
We have a high school offense.
Man A throws paper repeatedly. Man B throws rock with violent intentions. Paper wins.
Man B believes if he just keeps throwing the rock harder and harder, Man A and paper will break, even though paper is designed to suffocate rock. Paper also happens to be bigger stronger and faster too outside the general benefits afforded the matchup.
Scissor sits unused because it isn't part of the plan even though scissor is designed to cut through paper. Man A understands this and just keeps throwing paper daring man B to throw the scissor.
By the time man B realizes he needs the scissor to win, man A has adjusted and is now throwing rock almost exclusively. Scissor fails by design.
This isn't entirely a talent issue.
Man B believes if he just keeps throwing the rock harder and harder, Man A and paper will break, even though paper is designed to suffocate rock. Paper also happens to be bigger stronger and faster too outside the general benefits afforded the matchup.
Scissor sits unused because it isn't part of the plan even though scissor is designed to cut through paper. Man A understands this and just keeps throwing paper daring man B to throw the scissor.
By the time man B realizes he needs the scissor to win, man A has adjusted and is now throwing rock almost exclusively. Scissor fails by design.
This isn't entirely a talent issue.
Last edited:
It's not giving us the best chance of winning. It's merely keeping it relatively close until it inevitably slips away in the 2nd half--every time. We haven't won a single tough game this way. I've seen this before with v1.0.
In all of 1.0 years, we had more yds passing than running except for 2006.
We also usually had an offense that averaged about 30 pts a game.
Just saying
The game plan is to run the clock to limit the amount we lose by
Best chance my ***. You're not winning **** by calling QB draws on 3rd and 9.
We also had a really easy schedule in the easiest conference. Against the few tough teams we played it was similar.
this again- the BE during those 05-09 years was no loner the "easiest conference" - but yes, he did tend to schedule a very easy OOC.
But, I was just responding to what you posted. We had a winning record in those years and even in the L'Ville game- we passed the ball only 21 times. But Greg 1.0 had plenty of games where he was airing it out as well. He was a lot more "balanced" back then