Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Official Game 2 Thread: Kansas
Page: 4 of 4
shabamon
General User
Member Since: 11/17/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 7,312
mail
shabamon
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 1:05 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Just some incredible stats from this one.

Ohio outrushes Kansas 329-26.

Ohio runs 93 plays, Kansas 44.

Time of possession Ohio 43:38, Kansas 16:22.

I was at the game, and had the pleasure of sitting with the families and friend of the players. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience, being surrounded by people that not only were great fans, they were into the game, and knowledgeable about football. I saw and heard families and supporters of many of the players on the team. What a great bunch of Ohio supporters.

I'll post more thoughts tomorrow, but the stats above barely do justice to one of the most thorough beat downs I've seen in football. Kansas had two real bright spots, the kickoff return, and the first two minutes or so of the second half. Ohio had the better game plan. Ohio won the line of scrimmage. Ohio took it to Kansas on both sides of the ball. Ohio also won in special teams and turnovers, with the exception of that one kickoff return.

Also on the bright side, I didn't see many injuries. The one that might be a concern was Irons, who tried to come back out in the second half, but headed back to the locker room shortly afterwards. Dorian Brown stepped up and played a big game, but depth at RB is starting to get thin, so I hope Irons is ready for Tennessee.

Congrats, Bobcats, on a dominating win.
Mayne Williams' injury on his interception looked painful. What was your angle?
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 2:26 AM
Pretty win today. I'd classify it as a whole lot better if KU had played the whole game as they played the 2nd half. In the first half they looked like the worst team in the country.

You can unload on me for that, but it's pretty much true.



I still think that we have two big, limiting flaws.
Last Edited: 9/11/2016 2:26:28 AM by Monroe Slavin
allen
General User
A
Member Since: 1/24/2006
Post Count: 4,638
person
mail
allen
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 7:12 AM
I liked a lot of what I saw. Windham looked decent, the offensive line looked decent. Windham flashed his running skills. He needs to improve getting down the line on options and making quicker decisions there. That play did not work the whole game. He made some good throws. I thought Kansas got his hands on him too many times while back to pass. Maleek and Dorian looked good. Dorian looked great actually. Maleek missed the creases that Solich talked about Dorian missing last week. Hopefully Sebatian will be back next week and wecan surprise Tennessee with some long balls to cope. Tim Albin's play calling was predictable, but he did make one gutsy call in the fourth quarter on the second and goal pass to Reid. One defense the front seven looked devastating, game ball to Gerald Moore. Blair Brown needs to look over his shoulder and start making productive plays or he may well find a spot on the bench. The Dd's tackled very well, the best tackling I have seen in awhitle. Stites can be a corner. He made one huge mistake by pressing the wide receiver without bumping him the wide receiver ran right around him and he couldn't recover, that can be easily corrected. The tight ends looked good. Good turn around, solid coaching and great tackling kept the crowd out of the game. We need more red zone conversions and more wheel routes for Papi out of the backfield. No Irons in the second half, I would love to see him punish the defense in the second half.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 9:47 AM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
Mayne Williams' injury on his interception looked painful. What was your angle?

My angle was poor. On the stadium screen replay, he appeared to get body-slammed, and I'm hopeful that he just had the wind knocked out him. After his great play, he was eventually able to get up and walk of on his own.

As far as Irons, he appeared to be moving well when he came out, and when he returned to the locker, so I'm hopeful that his injury isn't too serious. Ohio is already down 1 running back, and they could use at least 3 healthy ones.
davepi2
General User
D2
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Location: columbus, OH
Post Count: 583
person
mail
davepi2
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 10:23 AM
Kansas message boards are fun to read today. Pretty much sounds like us after last weeks game.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 11:04 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Pretty win today. ...

Monroe, I'll give you credit here for saying something nice, even if you backed off of it a bit. I still think there's a lot of great football ahead this year. Have some fun, and enjoy it. As bad as Kansas may be, they are still a P5 team, and, particularly in the first half, Ohio showed how good they have the potential to be.
LuckySparrow
General User
Member Since: 10/16/2012
Location: IL
Post Count: 1,814
mail
LuckySparrow
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 12:06 PM
Great, dominating win.

I have absolutely no idea what Kansas was thinking with their offensive playcalls in the first half. It's like they had absolutely no idea how to exploit our weaknesses.

Awesome game. On to Tennessee!
Last Edited: 9/11/2016 12:06:12 PM by LuckySparrow
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 12:26 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Pretty win today. ...

Monroe, I'll give you credit here for saying something nice, even if you backed off of it a bit. I still think there's a lot of great football ahead this year. Have some fun, and enjoy it. As bad as Kansas may be, they are still a P5 team, and, particularly in the first half, Ohio showed how good they have the potential to be.
What does that mean, that they are still a P5 team?

Obviously, they are in a literal sense.

But that first half was by them was awfully weak. Awfully. And, they showed no--zero--ability to run it.

Yes, we had something to do with that. But some consideration of the quality of the opponent is due.

We played well. No doubt. But KU was quite bad.


One thing to consider. Our receivers dropped a few passes when wide open. That can't happen. Just can't. Beside Papi's speed, I see nothing at all exceptional about our receivers. None appear near All-MAC caliber. Point to one receiver who's 'must guard' or game-breaker/controller. Judge with objective eyes, not the green kool-aid.

Also. Papi may break one of those hand-offs around end. But there seemed to be 5-6 in the second half that went nowhere. Run more powerful running backs.

And, I doubt the qb draw type runs which worked so well in the first half--really sewed up the game--work much again this year. Teams will be ready for them.
Cats-22
General User
C22
Member Since: 9/30/2006
Post Count: 370
person
mail
Cats-22
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 12:26 PM
shabamon wrote:expand_more
Mayne Williams' injury on his interception looked painful. What was your angle?

I'm sure they'll be careful in evaluating that one. It was great to see him walk off the field on his own power.

Great win. Ohio played much better than last week, in all phases.

I'm not sure Kansas is that bad. They made mistakes (dropping multiple punts) but they are capable of doing some things. It'll be interesting to see how both Kansas and Texas State end up this season, I think they're both improved over last year.
El Gato Roberto
General User
EGR
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,220
person
mail
El Gato Roberto
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 12:28 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Pretty win today. I'd classify it as a whole lot better if KU had played the whole game as they played the 2nd half.
It's called "halftime adjustment"

Look in he mirror and take note of YOUR limiting flaws.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 12:36 PM
We played much better and won one. KU is a P5 SCHOOL but their players are MAC level...at best.
El Gato Roberto
General User
EGR
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,220
person
mail
El Gato Roberto
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 12:42 PM
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
We played much better and won one. KU is a P5 SCHOOL but their players are MAC level...at best.

I agree

KU is bad. Ohio played better and won.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 3:49 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
What does that mean, that they are still a P5 team?...

Kansas is a P5 team. They have had higher ranked recruiting classes than Ohio every single year. They have other problems, however, that Ohio hasn't had.

Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
...But that first half was by them was awfully weak. Awfully. And, they showed no--zero--ability to run it.

Yes, we had something to do with that. But some consideration of the quality of the opponent is due.

We played well. No doubt. But KU was quite bad. ...

I said before the year that I expected that Ohio Ohio would have a very good front seven, one of their best ever. I believe Kansas will not be the last team that has trouble running against them.

Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
...One thing to consider. Our receivers dropped a few passes when wide open. That can't happen. Just can't. Beside Papi's speed, I see nothing at all exceptional about our receivers. None appear near All-MAC caliber. Point to one receiver who's 'must guard' or game-breaker/controller. Judge with objective eyes, not the green kool-aid. ...

I agree that there is still much to work on. There is talent there, and it will improve. Windham will improve, and the receivers will.

Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
...Also. Papi may break one of those hand-offs around end. But there seemed to be 5-6 in the second half that went nowhere. Run more powerful running backs. ...


We'll have to see what his average is at the end of the year. Thus far he's below Brown and Irons.

Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
...And, I doubt the qb draw type runs which worked so well in the first half--really sewed up the game--work much again this year. Teams will be ready for them.

Good. That's what you want. You want their linebackers watching for the QB to take off, and you want the defensive linemen focused on contain rather than sacks. That will really open up the passing attack, which is the real objective of passing plays. Windham will have time to throw, and lanes to throw into.

Sometimes teams will be overly aggressive going for sacks, and leave running lanes for the QB draw, and you need to punish them when they do with some draws, but you really don't want that as a primary attack because you don't want to get the QB hit every play.
Last Edited: 9/11/2016 3:52:47 PM by L.C.
El Gato Roberto
General User
EGR
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,220
person
mail
El Gato Roberto
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 6:04 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
What does that mean, that they are still a P5 team?...

Kansas is a P5 team. They have had higher ranked recruiting classes than Ohio every single year. They have other problems, however, that Ohio hasn't had.

...But that first half was by them was awfully weak. Awfully. And, they showed no--zero--ability to run it.

Yes, we had something to do with that. But some consideration of the quality of the opponent is due.

We played well. No doubt. But KU was quite bad. ...

I said before the year that I expected that Ohio Ohio would have a very good front seven, one of their best ever. I believe Kansas will not be the last team that has trouble running against them.

...One thing to consider. Our receivers dropped a few passes when wide open. That can't happen. Just can't. Beside Papi's speed, I see nothing at all exceptional about our receivers. None appear near All-MAC caliber. Point to one receiver who's 'must guard' or game-breaker/controller. Judge with objective eyes, not the green kool-aid. ...

I agree that there is still much to work on. There is talent there, and it will improve. Windham will improve, and the receivers will.

...Also. Papi may break one of those hand-offs around end. But there seemed to be 5-6 in the second half that went nowhere. Run more powerful running backs. ...


We'll have to see what his average is at the end of the year. Thus far he's below Brown and Irons.

...And, I doubt the qb draw type runs which worked so well in the first half--really sewed up the game--work much again this year. Teams will be ready for them.

Good. That's what you want. You want their linebackers watching for the QB to take off, and you want the defensive linemen focused on contain rather than sacks. That will really open up the passing attack, which is the real objective of passing plays. Windham will have time to throw, and lanes to throw into.

Sometimes teams will be overly aggressive going for sacks, and leave running lanes for the QB draw, and you need to punish them when they do with some draws, but you really don't want that as a primary attack because you don't want to get the QB hit every play.
Damn. Ring the bell; school's in!
Last Edited: 9/11/2016 6:05:01 PM by El Gato Roberto
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 7:57 PM
El Gato Roberto wrote:expand_more
What does that mean, that they are still a P5 team?...

Kansas is a P5 team. They have had higher ranked recruiting classes than Ohio every single year. They have other problems, however, that Ohio hasn't had.

...But that first half was by them was awfully weak. Awfully. And, they showed no--zero--ability to run it.

Yes, we had something to do with that. But some consideration of the quality of the opponent is due.

We played well. No doubt. But KU was quite bad. ...

I said before the year that I expected that Ohio Ohio would have a very good front seven, one of their best ever. I believe Kansas will not be the last team that has trouble running against them.

...One thing to consider. Our receivers dropped a few passes when wide open. That can't happen. Just can't. Beside Papi's speed, I see nothing at all exceptional about our receivers. None appear near All-MAC caliber. Point to one receiver who's 'must guard' or game-breaker/controller. Judge with objective eyes, not the green kool-aid. ...

I agree that there is still much to work on. There is talent there, and it will improve. Windham will improve, and the receivers will.

...Also. Papi may break one of those hand-offs around end. But there seemed to be 5-6 in the second half that went nowhere. Run more powerful running backs. ...


We'll have to see what his average is at the end of the year. Thus far he's below Brown and Irons.

...And, I doubt the qb draw type runs which worked so well in the first half--really sewed up the game--work much again this year. Teams will be ready for them.

Good. That's what you want. You want their linebackers watching for the QB to take off, and you want the defensive linemen focused on contain rather than sacks. That will really open up the passing attack, which is the real objective of passing plays. Windham will have time to throw, and lanes to throw into.

Sometimes teams will be overly aggressive going for sacks, and leave running lanes for the QB draw, and you need to punish them when they do with some draws, but you really don't want that as a primary attack because you don't want to get the QB hit every play.
Damn. Ring the bell; school's in!
Pretty sure the tutor's lesson went right over the pupil's head. Can't fault the tutor for his valiant attempt.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 8:27 PM
I know that the game's the game...what happened, happened.

But we got two huge gifts on their fumbles which we recovered on their muffs of punts. I think we scored a td off one but got only a field goal off the other (?). If those don't happen...

ALso, what was that on the punt that they muffed? We definitely hit their guy before or as he punted--did he become a runner--but roughing wasn't called. Was that because either the snap hit the ground or he took a few steps before he began his punting motion (did either of the bad snap or the steps take him out of the protection of 'a punter'?

That was another bad play by them that didn't help them.


On that muffed point, great and unique penalty as our BENCH got called for interference with the refs DURING the play!
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 8:31 PM
And, no, when you have not a single backup qb who has played a down....get a clue...you don't want your qb running to be a major part of your offense...unless you're loving the belt Windham took running right on a third down with only about 30-45 seconds to go in the first half.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 9:01 PM
I'm pretty sure that the other punt was partially blocked. As for what the bench did to get that penalty, I have no idea. I didn't see it. My guess is that a coach got excited and stepped onto the field, and happened to run into a ref.
Bobcat110
General User
Member Since: 3/5/2005
Location: Mount Gilead, OH
Post Count: 724
mail
Bobcat110
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 9:02 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
ALso, what was that on the punt that they muffed? We definitely hit their guy before or as he punted--did he become a runner--but roughing wasn't called. Was that because either the snap hit the ground or he took a few steps before he began his punting motion (did either of the bad snap or the steps take him out of the protection of 'a punter'?
Rule 9, Article 16:
The kicker’s protection under this rule ends (a)when he has had a reasonable time to regain his balance(A.R. 9-1-16-IV); or (b)when he carries the ball outside the tackle box (Rule 2-34) before kicking.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 9:03 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
And, no, when you have not a single backup qb who has played a down....get a clue...you don't want your qb running to be a major part of your offense...unless you're loving the belt Windham took running right on a third down with only about 30-45 seconds to go in the first half.
So......Now your preference would be "predictable offense".......or that we do go conservative and let up with time on the clock......
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 10:07 PM
RSBobcat wrote:expand_more
And, no, when you have not a single backup qb who has played a down....get a clue...you don't want your qb running to be a major part of your offense...unless you're loving the belt Windham took running right on a third down with only about 30-45 seconds to go in the first half.
So......Now your preference would be "predictable offense".......or that we do go conservative and let up with time on the clock......

I won't even answer that purposely foolish, false-dual-choice question.
El Gato Roberto
General User
EGR
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,220
person
mail
El Gato Roberto
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 10:20 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
And, no, when you have not a single backup qb who has played a down....get a clue...you don't want your qb running to be a major part of your offense...unless you're loving the belt Windham took running right on a third down with only about 30-45 seconds to go in the first half.
So......Now your preference would be "predictable offense".......or that we do go conservative and let up with time on the clock......

I won't even answer that purposely foolish, false-dual-choice question.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,504
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 10:22 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
And, no, when you have not a single backup qb who has played a down....get a clue...you don't want your qb running to be a major part of your offense...unless you're loving the belt Windham took running right on a third down with only about 30-45 seconds to go in the first half.
So......Now your preference would be "predictable offense".......or that we do go conservative and let up with time on the clock......

I won't even answer that purposely foolish, false-dual-choice question.
So some paranoia creeping in now also..... Sybil ended up admitting her multiple personalities were faked - Wait - there is a Fake Monroe here also! I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 9/11/2016 10:43 PM
Ever know something then lose it? For some reason I was thinking it was a shame GW was losing those yards running the Victory Formation. Reviewing the game stats I relearned that the losses are charged to the team. I know, you all knew that.
Showing Messages: 76 - 99 of 99
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)