We were led, going into the game, to believe that Minnesota would have issues on the offensive line, but that didn't turn out to be the case. We were also led to believe that Minnesota's QB was not a good runner. Again, that wasn't the case. Finally, we were led to believe that Minnesota wasn't an effective passing team. Again, that did not turn out to be true.

I didn't see the game, either, only heard it, but numerous people commented that Minnesota's offensive line was dominating the line of scrimmage, and based on the huge chunks of rushing yardage they were racking up, that certainly has to be true. In the first half, it seemed that Ohio played their normal defense, moving people around, blitzing, etc, but they were getting eaten alive on the ground, and even blitzing did not result in sacks. Instead the blitzing led to big gains on running plays, and big gains on screen passes.

In the second half Ohio correctly concluded that if they let Minnesota keep running the ball, Ohio would lose for sure, so they changed up the defense, and brought more people into the box, and dared Minnesota to pass. They also paid more attention to the screen passes. With those changes the things that Minnesota did in the first half no longer worked. Many/most rushing attempts were stopped for short yardage, and there were no successful screen passes in the second half. Unfortunately, Minnesota was able to move the ball with more vertical passing, and they still won.

I have no idea what the answer was on defense, the real problem is that Ohio wasn't really able to stop Minnesota convincingly all day. Minnesota averaged 5.7 yards/carry and 8 yards per pass attempt on the day. You aren't going to win very often when you are giving up that kind of offense. Despite this, because of sound strategy, and oportunistic play, Ohio nearly won, yet it's precisely the things that nearly won the game that you criticize.

L.C. I agree. Every foe we play is splendid. Every game we play is exemplary. There is nothing at all wrong with our approach.

The lack of MACC in 10 years and lack of W over MAC team which ended year with a winning record for decades are not relevant.

All praise to our approach to today's game and for hanging with Minne and a W for 59+ minutes.

There's not a finer program in the nation.

Okay, you got that part correct.

I'm afraid you are becoming the blind man and the elephant - touching one thing and extrapolating it to the whole. It is especially true in this case where you didn't see the game - so we can forgive your misinformation.

You cry of the conservative play calling. I'd have that conversation in the past, can't agree this year, especially not today. Most obvious example - going for it on 4th down - instead of taking the 3. But it goes beyond that glaring example. We had 9 drives plus the final one. On those 9 drives we opened the drives with a run 6 times and a passed 3 times. (The runs by the way averaged 6.5 yards - 2,7,1,7,11,11). That is effective (not Woody at all) - and a good mix.

You are noticeably upset about the end of the 1st half. Since you didn't actually see the game let me explain what happened and why. LC is correct, their offensive line dominated the first half. We were pushed back on our heels - being overpowered. They had just scored and their team and fans were back in the game. The last thing we could afford was a turnover or even a 3 and out (by the way, we only had one of those today - on the opening drive - which we didn't score on).

You state we made no effort, nada, etc. to score at the end of the 1st half. We played it smart, but effective. Control the ball, take time off the clock, but try to advance it. So we run 3 times 7,7,( first down), 6 - to set up 2nd and 4 at our 40. We've reestablished field position. On 2nd down I agree, we should have run a play option for slant, or flat - something safe, but more aggressive - and the slant had been there all 1st half. But the way AJ was running - can't go crazy over the call. He gets stuffed. 3rd and 4 - pass to Smith (who played great) goes incomplete. Punt it and we go to half.

We are an underdog in the other team's house, with momentum on their side and a QB that was having difficulty walking - something no one has talked about. Worse case scenario we go in tied at the half (and get him patched up). I know you don't like or appreciate the approach. But what you like has nothing to do with what is right.

As I told you in the chat, my only concern with time management is we tend to get the call into Vick too late. Need to be more decisive in the calling.

+1

Minne clearly had us on our heels and was kicking the teeth out of us as it was tied 14-14.

It is amazing how rigid conservative, buying-into-it some of you are.

Again, tell me how our last drive of the first half (four runs, then a pass) could have been more conservative.

Oh; I know: Fifth play should also have been a run.


Yeah, that drive was a legitimate attempt to score. That didn't reflect fear paralysis of a turnover or Minne getting the ball back and inability to stop them getting ball back with very little time left.

Surely, what we're doing is a lock to get us a MACC this year.

Don't we have a senior qb and several starters on our O-line? You think chance of MACC is going to be better next year?

+1 I think that bonehead play cost us a halftime and lead and probably the game. I see no excuse for an unsportsmanlike penalty in that situation. None.

I'm waiting just like you, Monroe. I thought we'd see them today. We didn't. I'm perplexed on that one. I do have it from several sources that they have practiced them extensively with AJ and Irons in the last few weeks.

Blind Man - Don't forget to feed your elephant today

No, you are touching its tail with that stat. When we got the ball, we had been out gained 240 to 200 and had given up back to back 87 yard drives. The D was on its heels - but we must remember, you did not see the game.

- Don't you just hate "them" -

No, that is its legs. We could have simply run up the middle with straight ahead blocking, but instead we ran zone and gap blocking at the line. But the honest response is it as conservative - smart but conservative - I would have passed on 2nd down after we got to the 40.


The reality of the game is that when the offense takes the field, the FIRST objective is not always to score. Now settle down, I did not say it was not an objective, just not the FIRST objective. For example, when we get the ball at our own 2, while fans sit there and say, "let's go 98 yards!" the players and coaches know the FIRST objective is to get the ball out from the shadow of the goal line, to reestablish field position.

When we got the ball at that point in the 2nd half, the FIRST objective was to control the rest of the half - for the reasons I stated above. Once we did that (getting to 40, then we should have changed the gear). Again, I know you don't like it. But that doesn't make it wrong.

As you saw (that's right, you didn't) the QB could barely walk at that point.

Let's see how MAC play turns out. Yesterday was there fore the taking, they didn't close. The game plan was the right plan.

Also, that you hate me 1) has no meaning or effect at all for me and 2) does not make what I say any more or less correct.

For the win

Everything is available on the internet.

Okay, I got it, we need to fire Frank and let Monroe head the search committee for his replacement. The number one requirement will be to hire a LIBERAL coach, preferably a card-carrying member of Bernie Sanders' Vermont Socialist Party. This will insure creative play calling and unorthodox formations and we'll MACC every year. It'll be football utopia. It is incredible the insights you can glean from this board.