goTULA.NEt

I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.

Yes. Fritz stated it on the radio today.
https://twitter.com/LarryHolder/status/ ... 1301600261

Robert, we're on the same page. I think the team is well ahead of where we were with CJ and Buffet Bob, even in the season that we went to the N.O. Bowl. That team should have won 10 games minimum with the ridiculous schedule they played and playing certain decent teams without key starters.

At the same time, the areas for concern, IMHO, remain special teams (which Fritz coaches himself) and the passing game. I'd like to think we can pass the ball on many of the teams remaining on our schedule, particularly Army and Tulsa. Having watched all or parts of Army's three games, I know they don't pass well, but are quite capable of hitting a deep pass over the middle when their opponent overplays their triple option running game. They are well coached, but beaten down by injuries. If we lose tomorrow, I will be worried.

I thought we'd beat Navy and lose to Army but based upon the health of Army and the fact that it's a home game against a team whose offense we know inside and out, I think we pull out a win.

ROLL WAVE!

D, you're way off if you think Army is better than Navy

from CFN
http://collegefootballnews.com/2017/09/ ... me-preview

GreenPuddleSplash wrote:I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.

I posted above that Fritz said that on the radio today.

Before the season I thought going 0-2 vs Navy and Army with close games was very possible and would probably end my serious interest in the season. I thought most likely we'd go 1-1 and consider going 2-0 as turning the corner.

We played very close against Navy but too many mistakes to feel good about that loss. Unless we thump Army I'll be 7 out of 10 happy with the two games.

So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.

DfromCT wrote:Robert, we're on the same page. I think the team is well ahead of where we were with CJ and Buffet Bob, even in the season that we went to the N.O. Bowl. That team should have won 10 games minimum with the ridiculous schedule they played and playing certain decent teams without key starters.

At the same time, the areas for concern, IMHO, remain special teams (which Fritz coaches himself) and the passing game. I'd like to think we can pass the ball on many of the teams remaining on our schedule, particularly Army and Tulsa. Having watched all or parts of Army's three games, I know they don't pass well, but are quite capable of hitting a deep pass over the middle when their opponent overplays their triple option running game. They are well coached, but beaten down by injuries. If we lose tomorrow, I will be worried.

I thought we'd beat Navy and lose to Army but based upon the health of Army and the fact that it's a home game against a team whose offense we know inside and out, I think we pull out a win.

ROLL WAVE!

I think Navy is better than Army but the bigger factor is this game is at home and that game was on the road, and winning games on the road in college football is a lot tougher than people give credit for. It's just hard to give the effort and focus you need for a full 60 minutes, and the travel cuts into your routine. I know there are formulas out there that people like to apply 3-4 points or whatever, but I think when you have college teams traveling across the country and being taken out of their routine, the gap is probably considerably larger. There are several top ten teams that are about to figure out how hard it is to make that "first conference road trip of the season" tomorrow evening.

I had Navy as a lean-loss and Army as a lean-win to start the season. But if the locations were flipped I'd probably flip my expectations as well.

Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.

I don't see your point being backed by your stats. Small sample, and not a huge scoring margin between the first and second halfs. We're a team without enough quality players, and depth is a concern. The difference between 150 pts in second half and 190 pts in 1st half equates to 2.7 points difference/half per game. SHOW ME, because I fail to see your statistical analysis. If you want to look at our opponents outscoring us in the second half, they do so by less than a TD. We're underdogs in most games we play. The superior programs should be taking control in the second half. The numbers your produce are surprising....because there's not a more dramatic difference. And we're underdogs in almost every game we take the field.

I'm open to a rational explanation of the point you're trying to make. I just don't see it with the numbers you posted.

DfromCT wrote:

Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.

I don't see your point being backed by your stats. Small sample, and not a huge scoring margin between the first and second halfs. We're a team without enough quality players, and depth is a concern. The difference between 150 pts in second half and 190 pts in 1st half equates to 2.7 points difference/half per game. SHOW ME, because I fail to see your statistical analysis. If you want to look at our opponents outscoring us in the second half, they do so by less than a TD. We're underdogs in most games we play. The superior programs should be taking control in the second half. The numbers your produce are surprising....because there's not a more dramatic difference. And we're underdogs in almost every game we take the field.

I'm open to a rational explanation of the point you're trying to make. I just don't see it with the numbers you posted.

If you go quarter by quarter, (Tulane - Opponents)

1st Q: Tulane +6
2nd Q: Tulane -9
3rd Q: Tulane -19
4th Q: Tulane -38

We get worse in every quarter. 2nd half gets drastically worse.

So we're minus 38 over 15 games, which is -2.533 points per game we're getting beat by in the fourth quarter. WOW we're getting crushed late in games.

Depth.

Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:

Opponents Score:

First Quarter: 97

Second Quarter: 96

Third Quarter: 91

Fourth Quarter: 118


Tulane Score:

First Quarter: 103

Second Quarter: 87

Third Quarter: 72

Fourth Quarter80


Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.

This is REALLY reaching for finding something to complain about.

Army scored two touchdowns in the game. In each case, we responded with a TD on the very next series. Didn't look to me like "falling apart".

WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.

Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.

I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

golfnut69 wrote:

Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.

I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.

Show Me wrote:

golfnut69 wrote:

Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.

I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.

I think it will take another two recruiting classes before we can get a true assesement of Fritz at this level...personally, I think this is the best coached team at Tulane in recent memory at least going back to the Bowden years....I do think if banks had played the entire game at Navy, Tulane would have won...I do think the WR's need to get tougher and concentrate more...Tulane refuses to take my suggestion of having the receivers catch balls shot out of a Tennis Ball Server...if you can catch them, you can catch anything....

Show Me wrote:

golfnut69 wrote:

Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.

I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.

Those Army guys are literally trained to fight in desert warfare with full packs. You are damned right they are better prepared physically. I have no problem with that.

anEngineer wrote:

Show Me wrote:

golfnut69 wrote:

Show Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.

I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as Tulane

Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.

Those Army guys are literally trained to fight in desert warfare with full packs. You are damned right they are better prepared physically. I have no problem with that.

That was going to be my comment as well, Engineer. I'd be pretty damn worried if these guys weren't better prepared physically. As for the conditions, it was brutally hot, and as for time of possession, Army won that 39:18 to 20:42. Now take into account that our last drive was 5:09 seconds, and you're looking at a 39 to 15 minute TOP advantage for Army prior to our last drive. Army ran 74 offensive plays to our 52. So prior to the last drive, we're looking at a 74-33 disadvantage. I think there was a legitimate reason why we cramped up.

The bottom line is that this was a good win for the program due to the manner in which we won and the fact that it gave the team a player to rally around. Thank you Mr. Banks!!!

It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.

greenphantom wrote:It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.

Agreed. This is a "I am glad we won" game. Not an upset or big win. We need to stack this W on our record and keep rolling.

Wave QB wrote:

greenphantom wrote:It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.

Agreed. This is a "I am glad we won" game. Not an upset or big win. We need to stack this W on our record and keep rolling.

We agree on that.